you didn't answer the question, but nice rant.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Tad Boyle Contract Extension
- Thread starter The Alabaster Yak
- Start date
Guys this bears repeating....
This is a procedural extension that is common place int he new CU world. The same story will come out about McIntyre at some point in the near future as well, it will also be procedural and not reflective of his job performance. This is not the same thing as the full contract renegotiation that accompanied the Hawkins extension.
"raise" is probably a strong term here, typically the regents can address things around APR and grad rates in these procedural extensions. Prior to Boyle's previous renegotiation they had increase the earn-able bonuses tied to academic metrics which are in their prerogative.
Why do we have a procedure in place that calls for perpetual extensions that are not reflective of job performance?
Its the ****ing government damned if i know.
I guess I'm just bothered by this because I think I am far less enamored with Tad's performance over the full course of his career than most on this board. I'm very uncertain about Tad being a long-term solution and while I'm definitely not calling for anything at this point and am willing to give him some time to prove he can get us back to a contender in conference, I don't think it is particularly smart to tie our hands four years into the future.
I think you're still just pissed you went to that game in San Fran and they lost. :smile2:
I'm ok with it. Same thing he's gotten every other year.
I am not saying it is the right or wrong move, just that this is how under the current set of circumstances the regents are dealing with our long-term contract. Not sure if this is Tabor mandated, or really how it would even affect a buy-out as it relates to firing the coaches. Just that this is the procedure today and the extension is a reflection of nothing else.
As for your "less enamored than some" I don't know what more you can reasonably ask for out of a coach when you compare Tad's performance to our historical record.
In his 5 years:
- Boyle is the fastest to 100 wins
- Has half our 20 win seasons
- Longest streak of NCAA appearances
- Longest streak of post season experience
- Highest home winning % of any CU coach in history
- First league title in ~40 years
- Half our NCAA appearances in the past ~40 years
- Highest Win % opf an coach in CU history
- Attendance has more than quadrupled under Boyle
What else, relative to history should he have achieved?
Good points above, but "we'll see."
Jeric
Club Member
If we're going to compare Tad's performance to our historical record, why should we not do the same for Mike Mac in football? I don't see him meeting the standards of our history. I think the argument that what we should consider "success" for Tad be based on our history is as flawed as saying we should do the same for MacIntyre.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have been extended or hasn't done a good job for the most part, but I just don't like the "based on our history" argument. It should be based on his paycheck and the support he has from administration in terms of things that help him be successful. At this point he's set a new standard for Colorado Basketball, just like there's a different standard in Football despite our history there.
Last edited:
Don't be so hard on yourself.
AB'ers disrepect all manner of illogical opinions, even yours!
Last edited:
Bballfan1
New Member
I think we all are fans of Tad. its important that Tad win with a team in which he recruited every player. The wheels came off last season and it wasn't because of basketball. The players didn't seem to understand the need to be a team and abide by Tad's expectations. looks like that will change next year. I'm not a fan of rewarding poor performance. We can't tie our wagon to how bad we use to be. Have to think about how good we should be and shoot for that goal. Hope I'm wrong, but next year could be very telling. I've heard that we have a 7'1" kid coming in as a preferred walk on. Isaiah Martin.
Tad Boyle has reset the bar for what CU basketball Can be.
Mike MacIntyre will never reset the bar of CU football.
Thanks. Of all of the things he's accomplished, the attendance issue tends to get lost. Quadrupled. That's terrific.
xx
Jeric
Club Member
That's not the point, I realize Mike's situation isn't very comparable. But are we holding Tad to the new bar or the old one? Because you risk going back to the old one and getting stuck there again if that's the standard, and I don't know about you but I don't want to go back to that. As long as the new standard is set, we'd have the paycheck and the support to give the next guy the tools to meet or raise that standard. This is all hypothetical of course, I don't believe (right now) Tad is at risk of destroying the program he built.
There is a new standard for CU Basketball. Tad wants us to have a higher standard than in the past.
We need to balance that with not freaking out on a single bad season, though. We are seeing a lot of opinions that take a tone of this thing being broken and Tad not being the guy to fix it. More than a slight over-reaction. Especially when Tad recognizes the same core problem we have -- poor shooting and a lot of misses in guard recruiting. Well, he signed a top PG in last year's class, brought in shooters this year, and has reloaded the guard position by 1 (likely 2) guard transfers along with going outside the box to find a guard from the international ranks. What we're really missing is an ability to close on players to beat Cal, Washington and Oregon in recruiting battles.
I will say I love Tad so this has nothing to do with him, but I am not a fan of the annual extension as being procedural. Let the contract run and then negotiate another one as you get close. If the guy/lady wins, they will get paid. The whole idea of it helps with recruiting is crap.
Tad didn't "reset" the bar. He "set" the bar. For me, the jury is still out on Mac. But if "the bar is perrinial Top 10 and a NC, then you are probably correct.
i 10000000000% agree.
I have also learned that getting mad at the government for well behaving like government is a waste of time and effort.
Doesn't even mention the continued success in meeting academic and graduation standards. Recall Patton had them so far down it cost CU schollies.
gone native
Club Member
Just because CU has extended the contract each year, I don't believe it is purely "procedural" - the administration and athletic director believe he is a great coach (correctly).
Also, they know the importance of stability in an athletic program. Not extending and then renegotiating entails higher risks of either losing arguably the best ever coach in CU basketball history, or negotiating a much more expensive contract.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
That's been discussed ad nauseam on here the last few months-he's not on the hot seat, but if this team doesn't finish 5-8 or better, he is in 16.