After attending my first NIT game last night, I now know why nobody cares about the NIT.  It’s not because people are disappointed that their favorite team missed the NCAA tournament, or because they’re too busy paying attention to the NCAAs.  It’s not even because the NIT isn’t an actual national championship, the ‘National’ in the name notwithstanding.  No, the reason nobody cares about the NIT is that, by and large, these teams aren’t very good.

See, when you get two basketball teams together that aren’t very good, as we did last night at Haas Pavilion, what you get is a not-very-good basketball game.  I don’t care what the teams are playing for, almost nobody wants to watch the kind of ugly basketball on display last night, and judging by the sparse crowd that actually showed up, almost nobody did.

A sparse crowd of curious onlookers wandered into Haas Pavilion only to find a basketball game going on.

Being that the game was televised nationally on ESPN2, perhaps many of you watched the game from the comfort of your own home.  Perhaps.  You didn’t come to Berkeley, that’s for sure.  A crowd of just 1,906 turned out to watch this game.  To put this in perspective, just a few months ago, fellow Mountain West foes San Diego State and Utah drew crowds of 7,590 and 7,387, respectively.  To be sure, some of those announced crowd totals were buoyed by season ticket holders who chose to stay home, but there’s no question that interest in this game was somewhere between ‘lackluster’ and ‘non-existant’.

Anyway, for those of you who still care about Cal Basketball, but somehow plumb forgot that there was a game last night, here’s what you missed:

It was immediately obvious that J.R. Giddens was the Lobos’ best player; he was as good as advertised.  The kid is a heck of a ball-handler, and he can make all the shots.  The rest of the team?  Basically, they’re just a bunch of guys.  They run the offense well, providing screeners, decoys, and distractions, making the occasional three in the corner.

However, this team has a whole has virtually no inside game.  They probably attempted something like 6 shots in the paint all night, most of those off of rebounds.  To their credit, they still managed to act as though they had something going on inside.  The typical play went something like this:

1) Ball handler penetrates off the dribble into the paint.
2) Cal defense collapses effectively on the ball handler.
3) Ball handler kicks out to a teammate outside.
4) Wide-open 3-point shot.

Somehow, this continued to work, over and over.  Cal’s defense continued to collapse, leaving shooters open on the outside, and the Lobos continued to take advantage.  Towards the end, it got really frustrating to watch Cal continue to leave shooters open over and over, when everybody in the building knew that the guy driving to the bucket was just going to pass it out again.

And the Bears?  With their size and skill advantage in the paint, you would expect them to continue to feed it inside and feast on some easy layups.  Well, you would be half right.  The Bears continued to pass the ball inside, but they had an amazing amount of difficulty in actually completing those passes.  Passes would be bobbled, batted away, or intercepted; one pass from Randle went right through Hardin’s legs.  I was surprised when I looked at the box score today and found that the Bears turned the ball over only(!) 15 times.  It was pretty ugly, and honestly I think it would have been worse had the Bears not been bailed out by some rather favorable foul calls.

The end of the game was tight, but it was not pretty.  Jerome Randle made a 3 with seven and half minutes left to break a 53-all tie.  From that point on, the Bears took only 2 shots the rest of the game.  2!  In seven minutes!  However, despite not having any sort of offense whatsoever, they managed to continue getting to the line, drawing seven fouls down the stretch.

Once again, the Bears’ excellent free throw shooting saves the day, as Cal goes 10-13 from the charity stripe over the final seven minutes, enough to seal the deal.  However, it still took a big-time hustle play from Jamal Boykin to pull this one out.  With the game tied at 66 with only 36 seconds left, Ryan Anderson gets to the line to shoot 2.  An 87% free throw shooter, you gotta figure the Bears look pretty good to take the lead, and even after he misses the first one, everyone assumes he’ll make the second.  Not Boykin.  When Anderson inexplicably misses them both, Boykin is johnny-on-the-spot in grabbing the rebound, giving the Bears a fresh shot clock and the ability to just about take the last shot.  On the ensuing possession, the Bears’ offense once again goes nowhere, but with time winding down, Boykin drives to the hoop and manages to get fouled with just 4 seconds left.  His two subsequent free throws turned out to be the difference in the game.

My other shout-out from this game goes to DeVon Hardin, who’s taken some grief from Cal fans this year for what we perceived as his ‘failing to live up to his potential’ - i.e. not playing like a lottery pick.  Well, in his final, final game at Haas, Hardin had a heck of a game.  Yeah, 10 and 6 isn’t that great, and fouling out with more than 6 minutes to go (on a stupid push, even) seemed to really sum up his career at Cal, but let me tell you, he was a beast on defense.  Not only was he a big reason why New Mexico had no inside game whatsoever, but he played a pretty mean perimeter defense on Giddins, as well.  Not an easy thing to do.  Man, if he had come out like that every night, I think the Bears could have pulled out a few more games this year.

Still, if this game convinced me of one thing, it’s that not only did neither team present have any business ever being in the NCAA conversation, but whichever team won (thankfully, Cal) was going to have no chance against Ohio State on Monday.  An ugly, ugly game from two teams that really aren’t all that good.  But then, I suppose that’s the NIT for you.

While we wait for CBKWit and Ragnarok to file their live game reports about Cal’s win last night, I thought we could take a look back at our football season.  Our horiffic, horiffic football season. 

Avinash over at Bears Necessity has been doing some play analysis from the Cal vs. USC game (2007).  While his posts are interesting and enjoyable, I must respectfully disagree with some of his analysis and comments. 

In his first analysis, Avinash writes: "Tedford didn’t have too many great moments of playcalling this year."  

I disagree with this comment.  Tedford had many great moments in playcalling last year.  Many of those great moments went for 7 yard gains, 5 yard gains, 3 yard gains, 0 yard gains, loss of yardage, incompletions and interceptions.  Great moments in playcalling aren’t measured by whether the play goes for touchdowns or 25+ yard big plays.  Great moments in playcalling are when you call a play that you know will beat the defense.  And you know it will beat the defense because you scouted out their tendencies.  You know what personnel they’ll have in on 3rd and longs.  Or you know that they have a tendency to blitz the weakside on 3rd or long.  Or you bait the defense by using certain personnel as decoys. 

I saw plenty of great play calls this last year.  For example, during the Tennessee game Tedford methodically set up the defense with a progression of offensive plays.  I saw him use certain players as decoys for trick plays (Best on a halfback pass). 

And actually, the failed halfback pass against Oregon is a perfect example of my point: great playcalling occurs even on bad plays.   

Just because the play didn’t work or wasn’t a touchdown, or at least a 25 yard gain doesn’t mean it was a bad playcall.  Every play has an expected gain.  For some it’s 15+ yards, others it’s 3 yards. 

And let’s not forget that the players have to execute on the play too.  Player performance can negate even the best playcalling.  This last year we saw tons of false starts, WR drops, and errant throws kill drives, games, and great playcalling.  

First, an example of Tedford’s great playcalling and usage of personnel as a decoy.

A perfect example of Tedford using certain players as a decoy was in the first quarter against USC in 2007 (look at 0:25 into this YouTube video to see the play).  For most fans this is a simple end-around reverse.  But there’s more to it than that.  The beauty of this play is the formation, and the personnel used in the formation.  In this play Tedford uses Jahvid Best as a decoy.  Best is split out left with two WRs split out to the right along with the TE Stevens.  The full back is in a "strong" position to the same side as the TE (right) but not directly behind the QB.  The play starts out with Best running from the left to the right, and taking the ball off of a handoff giving the look of an end-around.  The look of an end around is further supported by the formation - by having two WRs, the TE, and the FB all to the right of the formation to block for Best on the end-around.  But the play is actually a reverse!  Best tosses the ball to Hawkins on a reverse and Hawkins reverses to the left side of the field! 

Tedford undoubtedly knew that Pete Carroll would be keying in on Best whenever Best took the field.  And the pre-snap formation that Tedford showed just screamed "end-around" (because Best was split out wide, and all the other players were on the other side of the formation -to the side that Best was running to- to block for Best).  So what does Tedford do?  He messes with Carroll.  He’s playing the mind game.  He’s playing that chess game.  That’s great playcalling right there even though the play only went for 15 yards or so. 

Now, here’s a great example of a great playcall being negated by poor player performance. 

A perfect example of player performance negating a beautiful playcall was in the 2007 Cal vs. USC game.  The play I’m referring to is the very last Cal offensive play.  Yeah, the one where Longshore throws an interception.  While Longshore did make a bad throw, the playcalling of this play was beautiful.  (For those of you with the game on Tivo or DVD, the play occurs in the 4th Quarter with 2:55 remaining.  Otherwise, you can look at this poor quality YouTube video at 4:09 mark).  

The formation used in this play is exactly the same one as the play above (the one where Tedford calls a reverse while using Best as a decoy).  The formation is 2 WRs and a TE to the same side.  The RB split out all alone on the other side of the field.  And the FB in a "strong" position.  The pre-snap look is exactly the same as the reverse.  The motion is exactly the same too.  The RB (Montgomery) comes towards the QB, but settles in the backfield behind Longshore in a typical strong-I formation. 

This may not seem like much, but Tedford has already messed with Carroll in two ways.  First, Tedford showed the end-around reverse formation but didn’t call a reverse and instead has Montgomery settle back into the strong-I formation pre-snap.  Second, Tedford shows a second tendency, a tendency to run the ball after moving a flexed out RB back into the I-formation.  Remember when Cal would always split Marshawn Lynch out wide as a WR, then motion him back into the formation behind the quarterback?  What would the play be?  A run.  Tedford isn’t dumb.  Neither is Carroll.  If I know this tendency, along with all the fans, so does Carroll.  So what does Tedford do?  He builds off the tendency.  He calls a home-run play.  A pass play that attacks the deep safety and corner who have undoubtedly recognized a run formation, and a run tendency.  

Unfortunately, on this play, Longshore throws an underthrown ball which is intercepted.  Had the ball been thrown accurately, it probably would have been completed and had a very good chance at being a touchdown.  

Anyways, the beauty of this play was the thinking behind the formation, and prior tendencies.  The fact that the play failed is a reflection of player performance moreso than bad playcalling.  

I shall reiterate my final point in case it become lost in all my playcalling talk.  Great playcalling happens on small gains, no gains, losses, and interceptions.  Just because the play isn’t a touchdown or flashy doesn’t mean there wasn’t deep thinking, and great playcalling going on.   

Part II will be continued later.