Birch1
Well-Known Member
The 3-ball can become more consistent, there’s the talent for this to happen. But how much of these metrics are skewed due to the ****e ooc schedule, when we were putting up 100, 90pts against garbage teams?
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 has to go
- Thread starter Buffs99
- Start date
The 3-ball can become more consistent, there’s the talent for this to happen. But how much of these metrics are skewed due to the ****e ooc schedule, when we were putting up 100, 90pts against garbage teams?
KP lets you view conference only stats too. Offense is 7th in P12, D is 4th. The numbers are all down a little bit, but not as bad as you'd think. Still very good defensively, and unreal good on keeping opponents from getting offensive boards (13th in nation for all season. Our conference only stat would put us in the top 30 in the nation - and that's counting everyone else's non-con stats too, so probably higher).
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
I’m here now! And why wouldn’t I be? This team isn’t going to be in the NCAA tournament and as of right now probably wouldn’t even be in the NIT. Is that acceptable?
They’ve won four in a row. Great! This is still yet another mediocre season and as a whole a mediocre nine years with Tad as head coach.
It’s hilarious that Tad supporters are coming into this thread as if its some kind of “gotcha” moment and bragging about a coach whose presiding over a team that might be in the CBI. Such a loser’s mentality amongst this fan base.
I’m not saying I think he should be fired and never have. But he should be on a short leash. And he shouldn’t keep getting these automatic extensions. And I wish everyone could at least be honest about his tenure which is not nearly as impressive as most seem to believe it is.
You don’t need to take my word for any of this. Just look at all the empty seats in the arena. People vote with their feet.
Last edited:
Nothing gets by you does it. I bet you're the kind of clever guy that doesn't believe the pretty lady at the gentleman's club when she tells you she's putting herself through school.
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
Including the Big East there are 74 “power conference” schools. Let’s bump that up to 85 to include some of the perineal elite programs in other conferences.
How under Tad Boyle has CU compared to these programs?
Using KenPom’s team rankings CU’s average end of season ranking during nine seasons of Boyle has been 83.
83 out of 85!
And the best finish-the pinnacle of Tad Boyle’s tenure was finishing 45.
This isn’t the easiest place to win, I get it. But still...83 of 85? Never better then 45? And trending in the wrong direction...
And yet the mere suggestion of a coaching change is met with backlash?
How under Tad Boyle has CU compared to these programs?
Using KenPom’s team rankings CU’s average end of season ranking during nine seasons of Boyle has been 83.
83 out of 85!
And the best finish-the pinnacle of Tad Boyle’s tenure was finishing 45.
This isn’t the easiest place to win, I get it. But still...83 of 85? Never better then 45? And trending in the wrong direction...
And yet the mere suggestion of a coaching change is met with backlash?
This is a bull**** baseline you've made up. Kenpom doesn't rate just Power conference teams. In this fantastical top 85 you've decided is reasonable, there are multiple non power conference teams every year. Some are consistently in there (e.g. Gonzaga), but just looking at KenPom right now that top 85 includes Wofford, Lipscomb, Toledo, Furman and Hofstra, among several others. Sure those teams appear to be having solid years... but what an incredibly stupid logical leap you've made here to decide that's why Tad sucks.
I thought we agreed a long time ago that "power conferences" was a football only term?
Gonzaga and Nevada would walk to the PAC12 title.
Gonzaga and Nevada would walk to the PAC12 title.
CU has never been a basketball school. But in Tad''s tenure has produced more wins, more NBA talent, and more tournament (NIT included) appearances than any other coaching tenure in the History of CU. Tad also has the highest winning percentage of any other Coach in the history of CU. He may have some room for improvement (getting off to slow starts, playing down to competition, and player retention) but realistically he is a perfect fit for CU.
Player retention has been excellent. Who that would have started have we lost to anything except the NBA? I was watching BYU last night and they put a graphic on the screen of 5 guys who would have been starting and making it easily a Top 25 team if they were there as planned. I think 2 went pro without getting drafted just to start earning money in G League or overseas.
Anyway, I think one of the best things about Tad's performance has been roster management and getting guys out of the program then backfilling to cover recruiting mistakes. And there were a ton of mistakes during the years Rodney was the RC as opposed to when Coach A did it or after Grier stepped in.
perineal elite? Taint so many of them.
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
Isn't this doosh a UofA fan or am I confusing Mr. Spelling Bee with someone else?
Nah, he can be an intelligent buff fan with a lot to offer, but chooses not to.
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
My typo game is strong.
The takeaway here is of course that I make great posts, both intentional and unintentional.
J-R-K
Well-Known Member
I don’t understand your issue with this. Im saying there are about 85 schools who should be considered our “peers” based on conference affiliation, funding, prestige, etc. These are the schools CU should be evaluated in comparison too. Duh! No one cares that Tad has built a better program then South Dakota.
Don’t get hung up on the exact 85 number, it is a bit arbitrary. The point is averaging out to being ranked 83 nationally is not impressive...at all. Especially considering that that there aren’t many schools after 83 that CU shouldn’t reasonably be expected to be better then on a consistent basis.
Long story short we’re in the back of the pack and yet delusional people are unable to recognize this is the case.
Last edited:
If only there were a smaller set of teams (like maybe 12 or so) that CU could measure itself against. To get a good sample, it would make sense to play each of those teams in a round robin format and then compare records at the end.
It's amazing how of the 85 programs identified as worthy peers in D1 basketball, 12 of them are in the Pac-12. CU is only 83rd among those peers in the Boyle era, yet somehow CU's average finish in the Pac-12 during that timeframe is not in the bottom 3 of the conference.
Hmmmm.
Maybe there's a problem with the math and assumptions that were presented.
Valid point regarding the empty seats being a significant problem. That problem is only cured with winning and better scheduling. The trend is positive with the current winning streak and the crowd was into the ASU game and got their money's worth there. Expecting perhaps the largest crowd tonight since many AZ fans will be there and hopefully more students. I will be there tonight plus 3.
Would have liked to see Boyle's latest contract set a higher bar to receive bonuses. Sounds like he currently receives bonuses based upon the quantity of wins. I would prefer to see it based upon the quality of wins by only counting Pac 12 and Top 100 or 150 teams wins.
Would have liked to see Boyle's latest contract set a higher bar to receive bonuses. Sounds like he currently receives bonuses based upon the quantity of wins. I would prefer to see it based upon the quality of wins by only counting Pac 12 and Top 100 or 150 teams wins.
I know we are all currently optimistic as the team seems to have turned the season around and been winning games.
Still though the question needs to be asked about what level of success do we expect and what are we paying for.
I know all the excuses about CU never being a basketball school (true,) about the facilities (partially true,) about the difficulty recruiting quality talent (also partly true.)
Especially considering that our administration is not willing, nor should they be, to go full scale cheat our way to the top it is reasonable to be happy with less than final fours and the like. It has been shown though that this program can be a regular tourney team but has fallen short of that in most recent years and will likely do so again.
For the money he is making it is reasonable to expect more from Tad than the program is achieving. This is not in any way a call to fire him but it is reasonable to move the bar up and let him know that without progress towards that bar he won't be a lifetime coach in Boulder.
Still though the question needs to be asked about what level of success do we expect and what are we paying for.
I know all the excuses about CU never being a basketball school (true,) about the facilities (partially true,) about the difficulty recruiting quality talent (also partly true.)
Especially considering that our administration is not willing, nor should they be, to go full scale cheat our way to the top it is reasonable to be happy with less than final fours and the like. It has been shown though that this program can be a regular tourney team but has fallen short of that in most recent years and will likely do so again.
For the money he is making it is reasonable to expect more from Tad than the program is achieving. This is not in any way a call to fire him but it is reasonable to move the bar up and let him know that without progress towards that bar he won't be a lifetime coach in Boulder.
'99
Well-Known Member
Tad's recent raise brought him into a tie for 7th in base coaching salary out of the 10 coaches in the PAC-12 who have public salary available. It's likely that Enfield makes more and Haase less, so call it tied for 8th out of 12, and likely to fall to 9th after Hopkins gets his bonuses and a likely salary bump after the season. Given limited AD support that ranks in the bottom third for recruiting spending and other basketball expenditures in the PAC-12, what is a reasonable expectation for Tad in conference?
With bonuses he is making well over $1 million a year, or should be.
I'm sick of the "poor, pathetic us" mentality. The same people who complain about empty seats making excuses for a team doesn't make the NIT much less the tourney. My expectation is that Tad have the team in contention for the tourney on a regular basis, and occasionally even advance a round or two.
There are limitations on the program, no CU will never be one of the blue bloods, one of the teams that everyone expects to be in the sweet sixteen every year. That doesn't mean we have to accept being mediocre.
Take away the OOC games against paid victims, the schools who any P5 program should expect to beat and what do we have left. Below .500 in real games doesn't cut it.
'99
Well-Known Member
Tad's new deal is 1.8 mil per year, so well over a million. But guess what, college hoops coaches are well paid and 1.8 mil/year makes him tied for 7th out of the 10 known salaries of Pac-12 head coaches. Your expectation doesn't match the money and effort the AD puts into men's hoops at CU. Sure, expect Tad to overachieve relative to finances, but the real limitations are from RG, not Tad. Tad has done more with less than any current coach in the Pac-12.
If anything, the "poor pathetic us" mentality is being driven by RG in hoops. Notice how no students show up, even for Arizona? That's all on RG, and his lack of investment in the future season ticket holders (students). Sure, a raise for Tad was nice, you know to move him to around the top of the lower third of conference coaching salaries. Your expectations for Tad might hold more water if RG invested in men's hoops. Bohn is a 4-letter word to the football fanatics on this site, but at least he truly cared about drawing crowds for hoops and engaging the students. Rick is a 4-letter word to men's hoops in many ways.
For the OOC schedule, do you blame Tad for that? He engaged numerous teams in an attempt for home/home series, but had no success. At that point, it's the AD's job to get involved and make it work. Another RG fail. On a side note, I bet you don't realize both Omaha and Drake are pretty good teams who have reasonable shots at winning their conference tourneys and ending up in the Dance next month? Sure, I want to see better teams OOC, but Tad did alright with the options he was given, and no known assistance from the AD.
Excellent post.
And even though I’m more of a basketball than football fan, I think RG’s priorities are correct.
CU absolutely had to get its football house in order and every discretionary nickel had to go there.
But student engagement doesn’t really cost anything and the ball has been dropped there. I’d love to see what Tad could do if he had more resources.
Its a pity rick george dropped what mike bohn did for student engagement in bb, especially taking the student section to tournament games. Understandable, but still a pity.
Why is it understandable?
football is the fuel that makes the CUAD go. that is a fact, and it is undeniable. tad punches above our weight in bb. as is typical, we punch ourselves in the face in the ad. right now, we're paying mm millions of dollars to be an assistant coach at ****ing ol' miss. i support the decision to make a change (see my first sentence) but all this stuff costs money. you have to look at it holistically.
if i were the ad, i would first try to get our football program back to where it can be. then, i'd take some of funds generated to build up the bb program further. but, our upside in bb is going to be limited by our willingness to cheat. that may sound too black and white, but to be *elite* in bb, you have to get dirty. that is the system. we can win at a high level in fb (maybe not a national championship at this point) without totally selling out. i remain unconvinced that is possible in bb.
because a couple of guys can make a bb team truly great, the incentive and the payoff for bending the rules is greater than in fb. hell, one great bb player can get a team into the tourney. 2 can take it deep. 3 and you can contend. that is the pure economic cost/benefit reason that bb is dirtier than fb.
if i were the ad, i would first try to get our football program back to where it can be. then, i'd take some of funds generated to build up the bb program further. but, our upside in bb is going to be limited by our willingness to cheat. that may sound too black and white, but to be *elite* in bb, you have to get dirty. that is the system. we can win at a high level in fb (maybe not a national championship at this point) without totally selling out. i remain unconvinced that is possible in bb.
because a couple of guys can make a bb team truly great, the incentive and the payoff for bending the rules is greater than in fb. hell, one great bb player can get a team into the tourney. 2 can take it deep. 3 and you can contend. that is the pure economic cost/benefit reason that bb is dirtier than fb.