So now that Tad has created expections...

[slider]

What do you guys expect from the CU MBB program in the next 5 years? Tad has essentially created expectations from nowhere

 

[Darth Snow]

Next year, if Mayor stays: sweet 16. After that: tournament every year. Can't really expect more than that for a program like CU. Won't know any more about our expectations until we see the 5 guys coming in next year.

 

[Daaah]

Next year I expect to compete for the Pac 12 championship which means making the NCAA tournament.

 

[Gold]

I thought Bz started it by creating the expectation we're going to compete (minimum of 15 wins per season) year in and year out.

Boyle has created the expectation that 15 wins is low balling it, and with our new conference, facilities, and frankly, good coaching and recruiting, we should expect no less than a minimum of 17 wins per season, a floor we haven't even hit in 3 years.

In the next 5 years, I believe Boyle would say "focus on your next game, not your next 150". And that's why we're going to meet, and likely exceed, expectations.

 

[slider]

March Madness is fun. I'd be very disappointed if we weren't in that talk (or just in) every year

 

[Creebuzz]

Ummm, where is the national championship every year option?

 

[CUFan]

NCAA tourney every year, compete to go deep occasionally. Can understand NIT every so often, but that option did not also include deep occasionally.

 

[Quattro]

I thought Bz started it by creating the expectation we're going to compete (minimum of 15 wins per season) year in and year out.

Boyle has created the expectation that 15 wins is low balling it, and with our new conference, facilities, and frankly, good coaching and recruiting, we should expect no less than a minimum of 17 wins per season, a floor we haven't even hit in 3 years.

In the next 5 years, I believe Boyle would say "focus on your next game, not your next 150". And that's why we're going to meet, and likely exceed, expectations.

17 wins is way low balling it with the talent coming into the program.

 

[Buffskier]

With the talent that we have, the talent we have coming in, and the style of play that Tad has instilled, I see no reason that we shouldn't be in the tourney all the time. I believe we are in the upper echelon with UCLA and Arizona in the PAC-12 and we can and will compete for titles for the foreseeable future. Next year I think a deep run, after that, we need to be in March Madness every year.

 

[slider]

While option #1 would be nice, I think it's realistic to believe we will ocassionally have an off year resulting in a NIT bid (see Arizona last year)

 

[Darth Snow]

While option #1 would be nice, I think it's realistic to believe we will ocassionally have an off year resulting in a NIT bid (see Arizona last year)

very realistic. All it takes is Tad to miss on two guys in one class.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

I do not expect Colorado to go deep in the tournament, ever.

I do expect them to get into postseason play, and would expect the NCAA tournament, but would accept trips to the NIT occasionally.

Hell, even Kentucky goes to the NIT occasionally.

 

[Bone Buff]

very realistic. All it takes is Tad to miss on two guys in one class.

Or a Injury to a starting player.

 

[rolandftw]

Very few programs make it every year. Even Bluebloods like North Carolina, Duke, Kentucky have occasional off years. With that said, will still be disappointing if they don't make the NCAA's going forward. We should be very good next year, but will be harder to predict in 2014/15 and on.

 

[Buffnik]

I expect the Tourney every year now.

These past 3 years have been the building phase of the program.

Sure, things could happen that could put us in the NIT in a random year going forward. But one significant way we differ from CBB royalty is that we're not going to see massive roster turnover in a single year as long as Tad manages his recruiting class balance. It's hard to envision another Tad squad being as young as this year's team was.

I'm setting the bar at Wisconsin. But I do understand the folks thinking more along the lines of Marquette.

 

[Buffnik]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament_consecutive_appearances


Not updated for this year yet, but still good for reference:
[h=2]Consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances by programs[/h]

Rank	School	Appearances	Head Coach(es)
1	North Carolina	27 (1975–2001)	Dean Smith (23), Bill Guthridge (3), Matt Doherty (1)
NR*	Arizona	25 (1985–2009)	Lute Olson (23), Kevin O'Neill (1), Russ Pennell (1)
2	Kansas	24 (1990–2013)	Roy Williams (14), Bill Self (10)
3	Duke	18 (1996–2013)	Mike Krzyzewski
3	Indiana	18 (1986–2003)	Bob Knight (15), Mike Davis (3)
5	Kentucky	17 (1992–2008)	Rick Pitino (6), Tubby Smith (10), Billy Gillispie (1)
6	Michigan State	16 (1998–2013)	Tom Izzo
7	UCLA	15 (1967–1981)	John Wooden (9), Gene Bartow (2), Gary Cunningham (2), Larry Brown (2)
7	Wisconsin	15 (1999–2013)	Dick Bennett (2), Brad Soderberg (1), Bo Ryan (12)
7	Gonzaga	15 (1999–2013)	Dan Monson (1), Mark Few (14)
10	Cincinnati	14 (1992–2005)	Bob Huggins
10	Georgetown	14 (1979–1992)	John Thompson
10	UCLA	14 (1989–2002)	Jim Harrick (8), Steve Lavin (6)
10	Texas	14 (1999–2012)	Rick Barnes
14	Temple	12 (1990–2001)	John Chaney
15	Duke	11 (1984–1994)	Mike Krzyzewski
15	Maryland	11 (1994–2004)	Gary Williams
17	Pittsburgh	10 (2002–2011)	Ben Howland (2), Jamie Dixon (8)
17	Syracuse	10 (1983–1992)	Jim Boeheim

 

[Gold]

17 wins is way low balling it with the talent coming into the program.

Would I freak out if one year soon we hit the minimum floor of 17 wins? Potentially, but it depends on how young we are. Boyle was quoted saying he thought we were a 15-17 win team this year based on how young we were. Luckily, we had special talents like Scott and Johnson who played above their grade during parts of the season. That might not always be the case if we have another year soon where we are relying heavily on incoming freshmen.

But after 3 consecutive +20 win seasons it's hard to imagine less than 20 wins even if that's overly optimistic.

From BDC:

"I'll be honest with you, when I looked at our schedule before the season started ... I was thinking 15 to 17 wins, somewhere in that neighborhood," Boyle said when asked if he expected his talented but inexperienced third CU team to get into the NCAA Tournament. "Less than that, I think we would have underachieved, over that I think we have overachieved given our youth and out schedule early."

 

[MontanaBuff]

Great find, Buffnik! (I'd give you a rep, but you've received too many from me already).
Really surprised that the numbers aren't higher, and the all-time streaks longer - although it looks like Duke would be at 30 this year if Coach K hadn't been out in 1995.

Two in a row for CU ... if we get to four or five, we can start checking around to see who still has a longer active streak at that point. That would be fun!

 

[CVilleBuff]

Great find, Buffnik! (I'd give you a rep, but you've received too many from me already).
Really surprised that the numbers aren't higher, and the all-time streaks longer - although it looks like Duke would be at 30 this year if Coach K hadn't been out in 1995.

Two in a row for CU ... if we get to four or five, we can start checking around to see who still has a longer active streak at that point. That would be fun!

Actually Krzyzewski saw they were going to blow in '95 and faked a back injury (I'm serious).

 

[Quattro]

I expect the Tourney every year now.

These past 3 years have been the building phase of the program.

Sure, things could happen that could put us in the NIT in a random year going forward. But one significant way we differ from CBB royalty is that we're not going to see massive roster turnover in a single year as long as Tad manages his recruiting class balance. It's hard to envision another Tad squad being as young as this year's team was.

I'm setting the bar at Wisconsin. But I do understand the folks thinking more along the lines of Marquette.

:yeahthat: at the bolded

Would I freak out if one year soon we hit the minimum floor of 17 wins? Potentially, but it depends on how young we are. Boyle was quoted saying he thought we were a 15-17 win team this year based on how young we were. Luckily, we had special talents like Scott and Johnson who played above their grade during parts of the season. That might not always be the case if we have another year soon where we are relying heavily on incoming freshmen.

But after 3 consecutive +20 win seasons it's hard to imagine less than 20 wins even if that's overly optimistic.

From BDC:

"I'll be honest with you, when I looked at our schedule before the season started ... I was thinking 15 to 17 wins, somewhere in that neighborhood," Boyle said when asked if he expected his talented but inexperienced third CU team to get into the NCAA Tournament. "Less than that, I think we would have underachieved, over that I think we have overachieved given our youth and out schedule early."

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will be the youngest we'll be for a while.

Year 1: 24-14, snubbed from the NCAA but a tournament quality team with no reason to have been snubbed like they were
Year 2: 24-11, lost ~75% of our scoring and still managed to make it to the dance (doesn't matter how we made it) and were a 9 minute scoreless streak from going to the Sweet 16
Year 3: 21-11, Start two/three true freshman yet we still mange to make the tournament while dropping a few games older teams usually don't (Utah, OSU, ASU)
Year 4: Return Spencer, Ski, XJ, Scott, Talton, Staltzer, Adams and gain Gordon and Jenkins. We also gain Hopkins, Fletcher, and Thomas. Zero excuse for not achieving at least a Sweet 16 run.

Year 3 had Tad's best recruiting class, all of which appear to be coming back. This is a program now with quality recruiting with kids who aren't going to be one and done's or even two and done. How did XJ and Scott play above their grades? Both were top 100 (one was top 50) 4* recruits, that's how it's supposed to be. Winning 17 games (barring a special circumstance) would be awful and their would need to be some questions asked. What have you seen from Tad's teams make you think that we shouldn't expect to go to the tournament every year? We should have gone dancing all three years that Tad has been here.

That Tad quote is pure coach speak as well, what's he going to say? "Yup 24 wins again this year"? Come on. Tad also said NAU and Hartford were very good teams and we'd have to play our best to beat them. So yeah, coach speak.

Anything less than 22 wins now is unacceptable.

 

[Goose]

I'm setting the bar at Wisconsin.

This. Ever since you brought it up 2 or 3 years ago, I've thought it was the perfect thing to aim for.

 

[Buffskier]

This. Ever since you brought it up 2 or 3 years ago, I've thought it was the perfect thing to aim for.

except our basketball is actually enjoyable to watch... boom..

 

[wyobuff]

After pattons years, i'm basically crappy my pants we are even in the discussion for the tourney, let alone put ourselves in a position to win a game (and almost 2) last year in the post season. From now on though, I'd like to see the team in the dance every year and go deep (elite 8) a few times. I hope tad is here for a while, and I dont see him missing out on good recruits often. He probably wont get the #1 player in the country ever, but that's not really what his system needs. If he can find a guy that's a perfect fit for how we operate, that is even better in my book.

 

[tante]

This. Ever since you brought it up 2 or 3 years ago, I've thought it was the perfect thing to aim for.

In both football and basketball.

 

[Scotch]

Tourney expected every year. Because I'm selfish, and why the hell not!!!

 

[OUBuff]

I am somewhere in between selection one and two. I am looking for tourney every year but with an occasional "deep" run, but okay with an every once in awhile NIT. Hey, Kentucky is in the NIT This year and they should have much higher expectations than our crowd.

 

[BinaryBuff]

The taste of success is highly addictive. I now expect the NCAA tourney every year.

 

[Scotch]

After pattons years, i'm basically crappy my pants we are even in the discussion for the tourney, let alone put ourselves in a position to win a game (and almost 2) last year in the post season. From now on though, I'd like to see the team in the dance every year and go deep (elite 8) a few times. I hope tad is here for a while, and I dont see him missing out on good recruits often. He probably wont get the #1 player in the country ever, but that's not really what his system needs. If he can find a guy that's a perfect fit for how we operate, that is even better in my book.

Why? He did make it to the tourney twice and went 1-2. No coach since the 60's had made it before him.

 

[Quattro]

I am somewhere in between selection one and two. I am looking for tourney every year but with an occasional "deep" run, but okay with an every once in awhile NIT. Hey, Kentucky is in the NIT This year and they should have much higher expectations than our crowd.

Kentucky also has a lot of of one and done's, we don't so it's not really a good comparision

 

[Gold]

:yeahthat: at the bolded


I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this will be the youngest we'll be for a while.

Year 1: 24-14, snubbed from the NCAA but a tournament quality team with no reason to have been snubbed like they were
Year 2: 24-11, lost ~75% of our scoring and still managed to make it to the dance (doesn't matter how we made it) and were a 9 minute scoreless streak from going to the Sweet 16
Year 3: 21-11, Start two/three true freshman yet we still mange to make the tournament while dropping a few games older teams usually don't (Utah, OSU, ASU)
Year 4: Return Spencer, Ski, XJ, Scott, Talton, Staltzer, Adams and gain Gordon and Jenkins. We also gain Hopkins, Fletcher, and Thomas. Zero excuse for not achieving at least a Sweet 16 run.

Year 3 had Tad's best recruiting class, all of which appear to be coming back. This is a program now with quality recruiting with kids who aren't going to be one and done's or even two and done. How did XJ and Scott play above their grades? Both were top 100 (one was top 50) 4* recruits, that's how it's supposed to be. Winning 17 games (barring a special circumstance) would be awful and their would need to be some questions asked. What have you seen from Tad's teams make you think that we shouldn't expect to go to the tournament every year? We should have gone dancing all three years that Tad has been here.

That Tad quote is pure coach speak as well, what's he going to say? "Yup 24 wins again this year"? Come on. Tad also said NAU and Hartford were very good teams and we'd have to play our best to beat them. So yeah, coach speak.

Anything less than 22 wins now is unacceptable.

Reality means we're due for the occasional bad year, aka, 17 wins. As much of a fan as I am, I'm also realistic about how difficult it is to win +20 year in and out.

The expectation of making the tourney every year is probably a little too high. 3 out of 4 years (75% of the time), sure. Every year from here to Tad Boyle's infinity (100%), no.

Kentucky (who in their defense sent a bunch of people to the NBA) didn't even make the tourney this year. They brought in a bunch of Top 100 freshmen and they still didn't get it done. Hopkins is a Top 100 freshmen. Do I expect him to play as well as XJ down the stretch? I would be thrilled if he did, but I wouldn't be surprised if he needed a year until he is a star because that's a realistic expectation. Not all Top 100 players are equal.

I like the enthusiasm, but this is just our second year in a row in the tourney. Our trajectory looks good, but it's naive to think the trajectory is always up and to the right.