Robinson isn't a Beav…yet.
Caleb Smith is visiting UCLA this weekend.
Haven't heard any reports about his visit. Mora and staff seem like great recruiters, though, so I'm nervous. We'll see. If we lose any of these guys the class takes a big hit. Right now it's a very solid class, though it notably lacks speed.
PS. Seumalo visits USC next weekend.
Just got in. Game thread!
The Beavs open their league home schedule tonight against Cal. Both teams have been inconsistent to start league play. But Cal managed to use their home court advantage to eke one out against USC and to demolish UCLA last weekend, while the Beavs played tentatively to start games, which forced them to work and search for their successful non-con identity.
It’s going to be a matter of which teams show up tonight. Cal has historically had problems at Gill, and the Beavs clearly favor their home rims. But will it all be that simple?
Cal’s leader is the tough as nails senior PG Jorge Gutierrez (6’3″). He does a lot of things well, but what he does best is his on-ball defense and penetration on offense. He just finds ways to get in the lane and either get his teammates involved or get to the rim. He will likely be matched up with Jared on both ends tonight. And Jared will likely be run off a lot of screens to try to get Jorge free. Secondary help will be key when Gutierrez looks to control the key.
Soph Alan Crabbe (6’6″) has only upgraded his game slightly from his frosh campaign. But there wasn’t much to upgrade. He’s shooting better from the floor this year, and his boards and assists are up slightly. But all that seems to be at the expense of defense and getting to the line. While he remains an offensive threat… always… the numbers say he’s doing less of the actual heavy lifting and tough work maturity adds to most kids’ games. Still, his primary role is the scorer on this team, and he does fill that role.
Senior PF Harper Kamp is doing precisely what junior PF Harper Kamp did last year. He’s the interior work horse for this Cal squad. He’s always active on defense, and he’s always hanging around the rim on offense, waiting for the ball to land in his hands for an easy deuce. While I thought the under-basket no charge zone might have affected Sir Flopsalot’s defensive game, he has managed to break that dangerous habit in favor of stepping out a little. But he will kill the Beavs if he’s allowed to roam freely on offense and if the man he defends doesn’t run him around the court.
Soph big Richard Solomon (6’10″) began December by being suspended indefinitely for two games for what was rumored to allegedly, possibly and/or maybe be questions of academic integrity. He returned for two more before he went down with a stress fracture in his foot. While he hadn’t played through last weekend, he has made the trip to Oregon. And it’s unlikely he made that trip to just sit on the bench. It’s unclear what he might provide other than boards and an extra big body inside for Cal. He really has not had that great a season thus far, and his presence might do more harm than good.
Then again, just having him for depth might help Cal more than anything.
Transfer soph G Justin Cobbs (6’2″) has had a breakout year for Cal. He’s been an outstanding shot from everywhere and has provided a third scoring option behind Crabbe and Gutierrez. And he’s pretty secure with the ball while also getting teammates open looks. He could be a problem if he gets warm.
Frosh big David Kravish (6’9″) proved early he could play, and he has been thrust into the starting role with Solomon’s eventful December. In my opinion he provides a much more viable option in the low post than does Solomon despite the latter’s size and athleticism. Kravish still plays on both ends like a frosh at times. But his teammates are savvy enough to force his play only when they know he can make that play. He might be a black hole, but he gets the ball in good position and takes good shots off his feeds. His downfall might be that he defends on-man about as well as a frosh big with slow feet can defend. He’ll be solid once he learns to stop defending with his arms and shoulders.
Other than those six, junior G Brandon Smith (5’11″) seems to be the only player Monty trusts to be on the floor. He’s not a great shot, and his defense leaves a little to be desired. But he does facilitate, and that helps when Gutierrez and Cobbs need help or just a breather. But I don’t expect either of those two to be yielding minutes on the road unless we run them ragged or they get into foul trouble.
Cal has had problems with pressure teams who throw waves of depth at them. They will try to make the game a half court struggle. And they have the personnel to control that kind of pace. But their depth can be run off the floor if the Beavs are even slightly on their game.
While I suspect the Beavs will come out much more focused to start their league home opener, I still have questions about whether or not they will do so. Their games up north began with them trying to get the ball to the perfect spot and then taking the perfect shot by aiming it instead of just letting it go. The free and easy Beavs that played in the non-con schedule were gone, and these robots had replaced them. It’s like they thought they had to turn their games up a notch and be perfect just because it was Pac 12 time.
Have they seen the Pac 12 this year?
Just play your game boys. Let the other team figure you out for once.
But until that wildfire play returns I have to say one game is understandable, but two games is a habit. There’s a lot of time to right the ship, and tonight is a great opportunity to begin. If the Beavs come out with the rabid defense and loose transition game, they do match up well with Cal. And it could lead to a fun night.
But I’m going to need them to prove it to me first.
The habit is coming out stiff and tentative, wanting to be perfect and doing anything but. If that habit continues, then Cal will push off yet another late Beavs run to win this one going away.
Cal 67 – Beavs 61
Angry:
Tonight's game will be all about the energy and execution out of the gate. If the Beavs come out and take an early lead, I like their chances. They seem to be a different team at home.
Cal is tough. Gutierrez and Kamp killed the (Calvin Haynes led) Beavs last season. Gutierrez isn't flashy, but he has a knack for getting into the lane and creating or scoring. Kamp also doesn't look the part, but he's a workman inside, cleaning up the glass and even taking it to the hoop at times.
What is scary about Gutierrez and Kamp is that they play to the Beaver's weakness. The Beavs have had a hard time stopping penetration in the lane, and they've had an equally difficult time boxing out and disallowing second chance scoring. For this reason, I think Cal has the advantage. But, like I said, the Beavs are a different team at home, and if they come out hungry for the win (which should happen being 0-2 in conference) they could pull this one out. Beavs desperately need a win to salvage any momentum accrued during the pre-conference schedule.
68-66, Beavers
Negative sociopolitical ads have always been effective, from the wars on terror to tobacco and every Presidential campaign throughout history. As the 2012 election nears, we're seeing more negative ads, even from Ron Paul, who until recently had run a classy campaign and taken the high road. While watching the Iowa Caucus last night, I couldn't help but wonder how recruiting voters parallels recruiting players.
On the subject of negative campaigning, William S. Bike writes:
According to Dean Michael Mezey of DePaul University, … what negative advertising does is get your supporters committed and excited. Those who are indifferent are so turned off that they are less likely to vote, as are people who are for the other candidate–so not only does it help you, but it depresses turnout. The ideal, rational goal is to turn out your most committed supporters and make sure nobody else turns out.
1. "What negative advertising does is get your supporters committed and excited."
Empirically, I'd say this is true. When a wish-washy recruit comes back from Cal or Washington, whose coaches are known negative recruiters, they seem more into the cause than ever.
2. "So not only does it help you, but it depresses turnout."
Again, it seems true. We often see recruits cancel all remaining visits after committing to a known negative recruiter.
Here's an interesting bit by Jon Solomon of the Birmingham News:
Going negative in recruiting resembles going negative in political campaigns. Facts or half-truths are selectively highlighted to create an unflattering narrative of the rival, turning some recruiting and political campaigns into plays on people's fears.
It's the ugly underbelly of college football recruiting, the topic coaches publicly deny occurs but acknowledge privately. Fans want to believe the other coach negatively recruits and not theirs, "but it happens all the time to some degree," former Auburn coach Terry Bowden said.
"There's a point where it's accepted and even humorous. There's a point where it gets to be mean-spirited and unethical."
Negative recruiting occurs when coaches tell prospective athletes and their parents negative things about other coaches and schools that are also trying to recruit that athlete. What constitutes negative recruiting to those under attack might be justified as the truth by the person firing the shot.
"Everybody knows what negative recruiting looks like," Bowden said. "They don't have to read a book to know what it is. The good guys know when to stop, and the sorry guys don't know how to stop."
Gadsden City High School coach Joe Billingsley defines negative recruiting as "challenging the program and character of the other university."
Billingsley said his former star linebacker Jerrell Harris chose Alabama last year in large part because Crimson Tide coaches talked about their school, not others.
The last sentence is particularly interesting. I feel like Beaver fans will argue, "We want players who want to be Beavers for the right reasons" (mainly because that is the type of player they get). Yeah, I want that, too, but more than that I want great players. Sure, some recruits will sign because of honesty and a coach talking about their school's positives. No doubt. But on a 17 or 18 year old recruit, what do you think would, generally speaking, work better: pointing out why University X is a career-ending path, or highlighting University Y's strong points?
When I was 17, a military recruiter showed up at my high school. He asked what interested me. I told him. He tried to bend the Army's message to meet what I said. When he saw it wasn't working, he said things like, "You will have no future if you choose path XYZ, it is impractical. In the Army you learn real skills." Etc. Point being, his fear mongering was pretty powerful. No, I didn't go that route, but had I more physical strength and less confidence in my mind, I very well might have.
Even as adults negativity it is a powerful thing. Ron Paul was leading the Iowa Caucus until the media portrayed him as a guy unwilling to (preemptively) start a war with Iran. Remember the 2004 election, with George Bush claiming "I am a war time President"? Again, fear gripping people. If a school like Washington tells a recruit, "OSU is a racist farm town…you'll never get on TV or make the NFL" etc, will the recruit have enough savvy or desire to fact check?
The short of it is this: Given the positive results of negative political campaigns and recruiting, do you feel Mike Riley (and staff's) aversion to such tactics is plus or minus on signing day?
Happy New Year, Beavlettes. Murphy's Law, Law of Averages, et al say it can't be worse than 2011. Right?
Hearing all kinds of things on the DT front. These are the interesting/likely ones:
1. Salt having second thoughts…still hasn't signed with Florida. (Long shot. He basically said he didn't like Corvallis).
2. JC DT Zian Jones interested in the Beavs, possibly even a commit.
I don't know much about Jones. Here's his film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMVHOdqmS4