Tad Boyle Recruiting

[RollTad21]

This is not directly related to the loss, but something I've been thinking out.

Recently Tad Boyle was on Mel Tucker's Inside Zone (if you don't listen it is useful pretty good with a interview of some legendary CU Buffs). The most recent one was with Boyle. Tucker and Boyle discussed recruiting philosophies and some of what he said bothered me:

1. "We aren't going to out recruit people". With his exceptions being Wright where they got lucky and Bey where they beat SDSU. I'm not sure if this was related to some of the shoe deal stuff that goes on that Boyle has been openly frustrated with, but to say the only team you out recruited is SDSU and you are ok with that just seems wrong.

2. "I don't want to recruit guys that are only good at one thing". The general idea is fine if you get elite players, but at our recruiting level it results in guys that aren't that good at anything. The two obvious areas is we've never had a true PG (I love Wright, but he turns the ball over way to much to be considered a true PG and there is no one ever particularly close behind him) or a knock down shooter.

Interested to get others opinions on this. Link to the full interview for reference:

Mel Tuckers Inside Zone - Tad Boyle - for Thursday November 28th - Buffs Inside Zone | iHeart

<p>This week on Mel Tuckers Inside Zone, the Buffs head coach and Voice of the Buffs, Mark Johnson, talk with Buffs Head Basketball Coach, Tad Boyle, about coaching, leadership, his love for Boulder, and being 'over recruited' out of high school! </p><p>See Privacy Policy at <a...

www.iheart.com

 

[ZandiBuff]

I disagree that Kin isn't a true pg - in my opinion he is the only true pg we've had since Spencer.

The lack of a pure shooter or anything that even resembles a 2 guard...

But hey, we've got 7 guys who are 6'6" who play defense, supposedly, so there is that

 

[seattlebuff]

Ok, so Tad isn’t going to “out recruit” anybody. Great. How about just find ONE shooting guard in the last 5 years who can actually threaten the defense a little bit? EVERY single team we ever play has at least one ... Sac State, WSU, Texas Southern ...
WTF?

 

[RollTad21]

I disagree that Kin isn't a true pg - in my opinion he is the only true pg we've had since Spencer.

The lack of a pure shooter or anything that even resembles a 2 guard...

But hey, we've got 7 guys who are 6'6" who play defense, supposedly, so there is that

Fair, on Kin. My frustration is with the A/T ratio. The game has shifted to more score first PGs, but point stands generally. That we've had 2 guys that can play the position at a D1 level that Boyle recruited. SG or a knock down shooter at any spot probably would have been a better example.

 

[Buffnik]

What I'd like to see is a switch in recruiting philosophy to what we saw build Villanova. Recruit the most offensively skilled players you can. Then it's your job to teach them and motivate them to defend and rebound. That stuff is coachable while the ability to get buckets is not.

 

[RollTad21]

What I'd like to see is a switch in recruiting philosophy to what we saw build Villanova. Recruit the most offensively skilled players you can. Then it's your job to teach them and motivate them to defend and rebound. That stuff is coachable while the ability to get buckets is not.

Completely agree. And on the couching side, that does seem to be something Boyle does a good job of getting people to buy in to and improve over their careers. We've failed to "turn someone into a shooter" though. Everyone seems to at best stay the same as what they were on the offensive end when they got to CU.

 

[JMBuffs]

Boyle is a great recruiter and coach, but unfortunately our guard play has been disappointing this year and its allowing teams to keep games close.

Koontz has had an awful season, Parquet struggles offensively, Gatling is streaky and limited defensively, Daniels isn't there yet. . .

 

[tante]

Weren't Gatling and Daniels both great shooters? Their shots are worse and they struggle with defense.

 

[torero]

Weren't Gatling and Daniels both great shooters? Their shots are worse and they struggle with defense.

If you look at Daniel's Juco stats, he's the definition of a streak shooter. A good amount of 1-5 and 2-6s from behind the arc, but also some runs of 5-5 followed by 6-8. Anyone who thought he was going to be a deadeye shooter wasn't paying attention. I don't remember looking into Gatling's numbers.

 

[Buffapalooza]

Boyle is a great recruiter and coach, but unfortunately our guard play has been disappointing this year and its allowing teams to keep games close.

Koontz has had an awful season, Parquet struggles offensively, Gatling is streaky and limited defensively, Daniels isn't there yet. . .

Boyle is a great recruiter? Um...

 

[JMBuffs]

Boyle is a great recruiter? Um...

ugh...Best recruiting head coach the Buffs Basketball team has ever had (and best overall coach)

It seems like we do this **** every year, Buffs have a couple bad losses and posters think we somehow need to get a Calipari in here, when truly we are not a Kentucky, Duke, UNC and never will be. Boyle is great for our program in all aspects of coaching.

As far as recruiting goes (over the last 30 years) other than Billups and David Harrison, all of the highly rated recruits to come here have been Boyle recruits.

 

[Buffapalooza]

ugh...Best recruiting head coach the Buffs Basketball team has ever had (and best overall coach)

It seems like we do this **** every year, Buffs have a couple bad losses and posters think we somehow need to get a Calipari in here, when truly we are not a Kentucky, Duke, UNC and never will be. Boyle is great for our program in all aspects of coaching.

As far as recruiting goes (over the last 30 years) other than Billups and David Harrison, all of the highly rated recruits to come here have been Boyle recruits.

Not even close.

It is always so much easier to take a program that has had recent success and continue that success, than it is to completely turn a program around. You have to go all the way back to "Sox" Walseth to find a CU coach that was even .500 in his career. Ricardo Patton came into this program where the program had not made the NCAA tournament (in whatever form) since 1969.

No coach at CU had ever had sustained success in the modern era.

In just his second season Ricardo had CU winning 20 games, and in the NCAA tournament, getting to the second round. His CU teams would go the NCAA tournament twice and the WNIT tournament four times. Patton's teams had six 18+ win seasons. Patton coached at CU for 11 seasons, and he finished with a record of .535 completely turning this program around.

Tad Boyle inherited a program that was already competitive, already had been restored to competitive relevancy. Tad Boyle has kept it going, but has made very little real progress compared to what Patton accomplished starting with a program that was competitively irrelevant. What "value-added" has Tad brought? Ricardo Patton carried CU into the second round of the NCAA tournament. Tad has never managed to improve on that. Ricardo Patton took CU to the NIT four separate times. Boyle has only ever managed to get CU into the NIT three times.

Tad has one single season finishing in conference better than fifth. Ricardo Patton managed that feat twice.

Tad kept a program that had been brought to competitive relevance, on a path of continued competitive relevance. He has never accomplished anything meaningful beyond the heights that Ricardo Patton already took this program to. Any legitimate Division-I basketball coach would have accomplished more in his time here, than Tad. The Buffs have been stuck in a rut under Tad. The Buffs have won a grand total of ONE single NCAA tournament game under Tad. That is the measure of a coach. Ricardo Patton (1-2) has a better NCAA tournament record than Boyle (1-4) does.

 

[Darth Snow]

I'm pretty impressed Ricardo managed to get his teams into the WNIT four times, but I'm a little concerned he never won that competition.

In all seriousness, trying to portray Tad as taking over a successfully competitive program from Ricardo is a big, big, big stretch. Besides being a factual impossibility, ignoring how Ricardo's tenure ended destroys the last shred of persuasiveness in the above post.

 

[Buffnik]

Not even close.

It is always so much easier to take a program that has had recent success and continue that success, than it is to completely turn a program around. You have to go all the way back to "Sox" Walseth to find a CU coach that was even .500 in his career. Ricardo Patton came into this program where the program had not made the NCAA tournament (in whatever form) since 1969.

No coach at CU had ever had sustained success in the modern era.

In just his second season Ricardo had CU winning 20 games, and in the NCAA tournament, getting to the second round. His CU teams would go the NCAA tournament twice and the WNIT tournament four times. Patton's teams had six 18+ win seasons. Patton coached at CU for 11 seasons, and he finished with a record of .535 completely turning this program around.

Tad Boyle inherited a program that was already competitive, already had been restored to competitive relevancy. Tad Boyle has kept it going, but has made very little real progress compared to what Patton accomplished starting with a program that was competitively irrelevant. What "value-added" has Tad brought? Ricardo Patton carried CU into the second round of the NCAA tournament. Tad has never managed to improve on that. Ricardo Patton took CU to the NIT four separate times. Boyle has only ever managed to get CU into the NIT three times.

Tad has one single season finishing in conference better than fifth. Ricardo Patton managed that feat twice.

Tad kept a program that had been brought to competitive relevance, on a path of continued competitive relevance. He has never accomplished anything meaningful beyond the heights that Ricardo Patton already took this program to. Any legitimate Division-I basketball coach would have accomplished more in his time here, than Tad. The Buffs have been stuck in a rut under Tad. The Buffs have won a grand total of ONE single NCAA tournament game under Tad. That is the measure of a coach. Ricardo Patton (1-2) has a better NCAA tournament record than Boyle (1-4) does.

NCAA tourney appearances since 1969 by CU Men's Basketball: 6

Tad has 4 of those in 9 seasons.

Ricardo had 2 in 12 seasons.

The program Ricardo took over from Harrington was coming off an NIT season and wasn't the dumpster fire you make it out to be. Tad inherited a nice junior/ senior group from Bzdelik that hadn't had a winning season -- and then the cupboard was bare with the underclasses.

I don't knock Ricardo. I thought he did a good job here with minimal support before he was done wrong with how his tenure ended. But let's not pretend he built a program from nothing into being nationally relevant -- he didn't.

 

[4thGenBuff]

Boyle > Patton

 

[Creebuzz]

Yeah, my recollection is that Patton left the program a mess, and much of the success that Buffaplooza credits was really the result of having one transformational player (Billups). Ricardo recruited Billups here, so credit that, but he was a heavy geographic lean to CU from the beginning.

In reality, I thought it was Bzdelick that left the program in decent shape for Tad, so Buffaplooza’s point stands. Bz got facility improvements actually written into his contract if I recall correctly.

Tad has been good, but I get the general frustration of not taking the next step. It’s early in the season and a rough patch can happen. I think the team performs better down the stretch.

 

[Darth Snow]

Yeah, my recollection is that Patton left the program a mess, and much of the success that Buffaplooza credits was really the result of having one transformational player (Billups). Ricardo recruited Billups here, so credit that, but he was a heavy geographic lean to CU from the beginning.

In reality, I thought it was Bzdelick that left the program in decent shape for Tad, so Buffaplooza’s point stands. Bz got facility improvements actually written into his contract if I recall correctly.

Tad has been good, but I get the general frustration of not taking the next step. It’s early in the season and a rough patch can happen. I think the team performs better down the stretch.

His point was that Tad didn't really improve the program when he took over. That point cannot stand. Tad had pieces to work with, but he took those guy to the next level and then sustained it for a while.

 

[Creebuzz]

His point was that Tad didn't really improve the program when he took over. That point cannot stand. Tad had pieces to work with, but he took those guy to the next level and then sustained it for a while.

The point I was referring to was “Tad Boyle inherited a program that was already competitive, already had been restored to competitive relevancy.”

Competitive? I don’t know. Bz was competitive in my eyes, but can see how others may feel differently.

I 100% agree that Tad has improved things, so I disagree with Buffapalooza there.

I’m a fan of Tad, but at this stage I can understand why some fans are essentially asking the question, “Has CU plateaued?”. I think we see how the season progresses, but I’m not surprised we are seeing folks ask that question with increasing frequency.

 

[Darth Snow]

The point I was referring to was “Tad Boyle inherited a program that was already competitive, already had been restored to competitive relevancy.”

Competitive? I don’t know. Bz was competitive in my eyes, but can see how others may feel differently.

I 100% agree that Tad has improved things, so I disagree with Buffapalooza there.

I’m a fan of Tad, but at this stage I can understand why some fans are essentially asking the question, “Has CU plateaued?”. I think we see how the season progresses, but I’m not surprised we are seeing folks ask that question with increasing frequency.

I think that is the question this season needs to answer. And after 10 years, he does need to show he can bounce back from a low period.

 

[Buffnik]

I think that is the question this season needs to answer. And after 10 years, he does need to show he can bounce back from a low period.

Yes. CU should not be an NIT-level program at this point.

CU should also not be a Sweet 16-and-beyond in most years program either.

Somewhere in between those levels and Tad hasn't had us there.

I think everyone likes that we haven't had very low lows under Tad, but the frustration is that it's been a long ass time since we've had any real highs.

 

[tante]

If you look at Daniel's Juco stats, he's the definition of a streak shooter. A good amount of 1-5 and 2-6s from behind the arc, but also some runs of 5-5 followed by 6-8. Anyone who thought he was going to be a deadeye shooter wasn't paying attention. I don't remember looking into Gatling's numbers.

Most shooters are that way.

This is how AJ Green (5-10 last night) has done this season. last season he was even more streaky
1-7, 1-5, 3-9, 2-9, 4-11,1-5, 1-7, 2-5, 5-10, 5-10

Trae Berhow has been was more consistent, but still has some head scratching games for guy shooting 55% from 3 this year.
1-4, 1-6, 2-7,0-1, 8-11, 4-4, 1-4, 5-8, 5-7, 5-6

 

[BIGEZ321]

We'll continue to be a middle of the pack program until we can get some Blue Chips in here. Only time I can remember CU being an actual sweet 16 threat is when Chauncey was here. NCAA ****** us over that year by giving us Indiana in 1st round and UNC in 2nd round.

 

[seattlebuff]

I’ve never watched a Tad press conference from start to finish. Has Woelk or any of these beat reporters asked Tad about the total lack of shooting guard production the last 3-4 years? It’s such a glaring hole in this team and Tad’s whole strategy ...

And another question: Tadball is supposedly about defense and rebounding. Is there a successful program out there that has that same philosophy, basically not looking for scorers? Not trying to be sarcastic, just legit wondering. Virginia is the only one that comes to mind.

 

[Darth Snow]

I’ve never watched a Tad press conference from start to finish. Has Woelk or any of these beat reporters asked Tad about the total lack of shooting guard production the last 3-4 years? It’s such a glaring hole in this team and Tad’s whole strategy ...

And another question: Tadball is supposedly about defense and rebounding. Is there a successful program out there that has that same philosophy, basically not looking for scorers? Not trying to be sarcastic, just legit wondering. Virginia is the only one that comes to mind.

1) Tad has specifically addressed the shooting guard spot's difficulties this year multiple times. He's even explained why Parquet is starting. There have bee whole articles discussing it. There has not been a comprehensive take down of the spot going back years, but that's a tough question to ask. I do know Tad is very excited about getting Barthalamey on the court with Kin based on a preseason interview.

2) You answered your own question, but yes, many other programs talk about defense and rebounding. Hell, like the program that just beat us.

3) You seem to have strong opinions without much information or even an effort to get it. Why?

4) Re the experiment with Parquet, I think that unless parquet has a break through soon, that experiment has to end and gatling has to take that spot. He's killing us most of his minutes.

 

[BuffLuke80]

We'll continue to be a middle of the pack program until we can get some Blue Chips in here. Only time I can remember CU being an actual sweet 16 threat is when Chauncey was here. NCAA ****** us over that year by giving us Indiana in 1st round and UNC in 2nd round.

Wasn't that in like 1996 or 1997? Had a friend right down the block that was a big Carolina fan and he was insufferable after that game. mother****er. Even worse, he's a Notre Dame football fan. I have the best luck ever, let me tell ya.

 

[Buffapalooza]

His point was that Tad didn't really improve the program when he took over. That point cannot stand. Tad had pieces to work with, but he took those guy to the next level and then sustained it for a while.

Okay. Since Patton had CU winning 20 games a season, had CU in the NCAA tournament, including making it to the second round in 50% of his appearances in the tournament, and since Patton took CU to the NIT in four other years, I'll bite. Ricardo Patton had CU in the NCAA tournament or the NIT in six of his 12 seasons at CU.

What exactly is this "next level" Tad has taken the CU program to?

1.) Tad has NEVER advanced farther in the NCAA tournament than Ricardo Patton managed.
2.) Tad's winning percentage in the NCAA tournament is worse that Ricardo Patton's.
3.) Tad has been a HC in Division One for 13 seasons, and only made the NCAA tournament 4 times, and only once in the past six seasons (including this one).

CU made a mistake in renewing Tad automatically, what we should do is land Becky Hammon to coach this team.

 

[seattlebuff]

1) Tad has specifically addressed the shooting guard spot's difficulties this year multiple times. He's even explained why Parquet is starting. There have bee whole articles discussing it. There has not been a comprehensive take down of the spot going back years, but that's a tough question to ask. I do know Tad is very excited about getting Barthalamey on the court with Kin based on a preseason interview.

2) You answered your own question, but yes, many other programs talk about defense and rebounding. Hell, like the program that just beat us.

3) You seem to have strong opinions without much information or even an effort to get it. Why?

4) Re the experiment with Parquet, I think that unless parquet has a break through soon, that experiment has to end and gatling has to take that spot. He's killing us most of his minutes.

Umm, well, clearly UNI has another major pillar in their philosophy ... outside shooting. And yes, Almost all programs emphasize defense and rebounding. But Tad has clearly made that the blueprint for his program and it comes at the detriment of having scorers.

And I don’t think it takes much in the way of next level metrics to see how bad our SGs have been basically since Ski left. Just a) watch the games and b) look at the box scores. Pretty simple. If you’re going to try to argue that isn’t a GLARING hole in our program, I’m not sure we’re watching the same sport.

 

[Darth Snow]

Okay. Since Patton had CU winning 20 games a season, had CU in the NCAA tournament, including making it to the second round in 50% of his appearances in the tournament, and since Patton took CU to the NIT in four other years, I'll bite. Ricardo Patton had CU in the NCAA tournament or the NIT in six of his 12 seasons at CU.

What exactly is this "next level" Tad has taken the CU program to?

1.) Tad has NEVER advanced farther in the NCAA tournament than Ricardo Patton managed.
2.) Tad's winning percentage in the NCAA tournament is worse that Ricardo Patton's.
3.) Tad has been a HC in Division One for 13 seasons, and only made the NCAA tournament 4 times, and only once in the past six seasons (including this one).

CU made a mistake in not being able to land Becky Hammon to coach this team.

Failing to address how things ended with Patton continues to destroy your argument. Do you think time stopped in 2005?

Also... Becky hammon?

 

[Buffapalooza]

Failing to address how things ended with Patton continues to destroy your argument. Do you think time stopped in 2005?

Also... Becky hammon?

Yeah, you're right. You wouldn't want one of the brightest coaching minds in a generation to be the coach here. Someone Byron Scott, and Poppovich are just blown away by. We're better off with Tad not recruiting and just focusing on rebounding and defending. Like he is back up in Greeley.

 

[Darth Snow]

Yeah, you're right. You wouldn't want one of the brightest coaching minds in a generation to be the coach here. Someone Byron Scott, and Poppovich are just blown away by. We're better off with Tad not recruiting and just focusing on rebounding and defending. Like he is back up in Greeley.

Ignoring the hole again. Why did time stop in 2005?

Interesting theory on Ms. Hammon. Talk about a hail mary. Tell me, what's your evidence she would recruit? Let's go down this rabbit hole.