What is Tadball?

[torero]

I mean, rarely is this meme 100% dead on, but, here we are.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Tadball is winning basketball, I don't understand how anyone can argue that point. Just look at his record at CU and at UNC. I can see the frustration that it isn't winning ENOUGH, but unless you win it all, I don't think there is ever enough.

 

[torero]

You know, I thought for a second you might have some decent insight to provide. Even though I disagree with you, I was willing to engage in conversation.

Then you mentioned how no coach uses the OOC to get to the tourney. Yes they do. Every year. You have to be a scheduling guru sometimes to get your RPI to the correct levels, which Tad has shown a knack for doing. But even this I was willing to forgive.

However, you completely lost all legitimacy when you claim Patton turned around the program after Bzdelik. Tad Boyle turned the program around after Bzdelik. Boyle has had 5 20win seasons at Colorado. Patton had 3. Walseth has 1. I would argue that the only reason Patton got to his first NCAA tournament is because he had an NBA all-star and potential hall of famer in Chauncey Billups. Since Sox Walseth was coach, CU has only been to the dance 6 times. 4 of those come from Tad Boyle.

In the 115 years of Colorado basketball, CU has only won the regular season conference title 19 times and those were way back in the Mountain Sports Conference, and the Big 7/8. They have only won the conference tournament once. Tad Boyle did that.

3-3 in conference is not a great record. It is pretty mediocre as you say. However it involves 3 road losses (honestly expected), 2 top 15 wins and a road win at UCLA. While the number looks pretty mediocre, that is a damn good start to conference play if you ask any objective person.

My favorite parts were the "John Stockton level of knowledge" and the "Everyone in Greeley hates him" bullet point. When you read it as a comedy it's actually pretty funny. I'm pretty sure the Stockton bit is racist too, he was successful because he had a level of knowledge. Not because he's one of the greatest NBA players of all time who is still the all time NBA leader in both assists AND steals. Really, John Stockton has absolutely nothing in common with Tad aside from the fact that they're both white.

 

[benito]

My favorite parts were the "John Stockton level of knowledge" and the "Everyone in Greeley hates him" bullet point. When you read it as a comedy it's actually pretty funny. I'm pretty sure the Stockton bit is racist too, he was successful because he had a level of knowledge. Not because he's one of the greatest NBA players of all time who is still the all time NBA leader in both assists AND steals. Really, John Stockton has absolutely nothing in common with Tad aside from the fact that they're both white.

Well, they both rocked the short shorts with style.

 

[WarBuff]

Full disclosure.....
I was a student at CU when Tad went to KU. Booed him heartily every single time he touched the ball when they came to Boulder because he went to KU and was a jaychicken. Should have been a Buff. I probably should apologize sometime for doing that, but maybe he has forgotten.

I have been very happy with what he has done here, because he has elevated CU BBall into something to be seen. He isn't perfect, and I accept that as he is just what we need. I can't imagine what CU fans would have done had we seen the types of wins during the early 80's that my kids have seen the last few years. We never beat KS, never beat OU and certainly never had a 20 win season. We were just glad to be competitive.

That has changed and Tad is the one that did it.

 

[Highlander]

This is Tadball, too:
Colorado: The Buffaloes improved to 16-29 against ranked teams under Boyle. The 16 wins represents more than 25 percent of the school's victories over ranked opponents (60) since 1949-50
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/recap?gameId=400988298

To put this in perspective, Tad has coached 11% (7 seasons) of the last 67, while delivering 27% of the victories over top 25 teams.

Updated:
Colorado: The Buffaloes improved to 17-29 against ranked teams under Boyle. The 17 wins represents more than 28 percent of the school's victories over ranked opponents (60) since 1949-50
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/recap?gameId=400988298

To put this in perspective, Tad has coached 11% (7 seasons) of the last 67, while delivering 28.3% of the victories over top 25 teams.

 

[Ruckus]

 

[tante]

There was this interesting post on CU basketball on Ralphie report: https://www.ralphiereport.com/buffa...cal-look-tournament-bubble-colorado-buffaloes

Then I found this in the comments:

This analysis is dead wrong

and only perpetuates Tad’s erroneous fixation on defense and rebounding at the expense of efficient offense. Cincinnati’s head coach stated that you have to score in the 70s to give your team a chance to win every night. He’s right.
Furthermore, the author wrote: " DEFEND AND REBOUND. Everything else takes care of itself." Wrong. Again.
Here is the proof when looking at Conference games: CU’s record when outrebounding the other team: 1-3. CU’s record when being outrebounded by the other team: 2-0.
Here is CU’s record when scoring 68+ points: 3-0. When scoring less than 68: 0-3 (they scored 57, 58 and 62). Rebounding is important but only to the extent you are not giving up a ton of second shots on offensive rebounds —total rebounds are meaningless. CU had a plus 5 rebounding margin on mighty Quinnipiac and only won on a buzzer beater. CU lead almost the entire game against UCLA (only trailed once at 2-0) and was outrebounded by UCLA by 6. So how did rebounding and defense take care of everything?
The key is to play good defense, rebound effectively (but only focusing on total rebounds is meaningless) and play efficient, I repeat efficient offense by scoring in the 70s and you will have a chance to win.
A stool is balanced on three legs (rebounding, defense and offense) not two. Cincinnati’s coach gets it. Tad is too fixated on a wobbly stool.
The author needs to take a statistics class at CU. He was blinded by confirmation bias of Tad’s incomplete coaching mantra.
For the unbeliever here were the rebounding margins in COnference games to date:
Oregon State (CU+ 2) Loss
Oregon (CU+ 2) Loss
Arizona State (CU+ 5) Won
Arizona (Arizona + 2) Won
USC (CU + 8) Loss
UCLA (UCLA + 6) Won

So first that is a terrible analysis, but it got me thinking, is there a point minimum to reach and win the game. Well the numbers show that if we get to 63 points or more at home, we are probably going to win. Our record is 100-6 at home when we score at least 63. The strange thing is that doesn't hold true on the road. Here is the W-L record based on different point values:

63 points: 20-34
70 points: 16-18
75 points: 11-9
80 points: 7-8

So we can get to 80 points on the road and still only have a 50-50 chance to win. No wonder Tad focuses on other things.

 

[Buffs Basketball Fan]

UVA is 16-1 and have scored more than the 60's just 8 times, including a 49-37 win over Wisconsin.
Held opponents to less than 50, 7 times including UNC.
There are different ways to consistently win and not always the most pleasing to watch.
not so much the HOWS, but the How Manys

 

[Da Lama]

Tadball? That's easy.

To me Tadball is a function of three things:

1. A Head Coach that truly does not get the game on a sophisticated enough level to compete in Pac-12 men's basketball. Tad is a gimmicky coach that wants to preach defense and rebounding, and will cite statistics showing when he gets what he wants with his metrics how successful the program can be. However, good coaches don't just coach the 25% of the games where the outcomes align with their preferences. Good coaches understand offensive and defensive schemes well enough to put the players they do have in positions to be successful, not bemoaning what the players they do have, aren't doing. Remember, Tad was just a Greeley prep star that was a nobody in college. This isn't John Stockton whose knowledge of the game allowed him to be successful at every level.

2. A Head Coach that is constantly and consistently throwing his own players under the bus to temper and deflect expectations of his abilities. How many seasons have we seen Tad bemoan "a lack of leadership" amongst his players, or complain about how "this group" is committing too many turnovers and making poor decisions with the ball? In successive seasons we've seen Tad try to diminish expectations, essentially throwing in the towel saying, "I haven't recruited good enough players, I'm not a good enough coach to work with what I do have. The hallmark of a Tad coached team is that he can't work with what he has to make them successful, he needs them to be what he wants. Well so does every other coach in the land. McDonald's All-Americans are scarce. This is a Pac-12 school, and the group of recruits we have access to do not believe Tad can develop their game and help them get better. Josh Scott could have been a veritable superstar under a competent coach.

3. Tad is not a natural leader. I was in Greeley last summer on the UNC campus for some basketball camps and it was amazing how many people had a story about not liking Tad Boyle. It seemed everybody and their brother around the NoCo camp had a husband or a brother that had played with Tad in high school and did not have positive things to say about him as a person. His message works at CU because college sports are tyrannical, and he can play the role of the despot, and he gets smiling new shiny faces at worst every five seasons that haven't heard his tired script before.

4. He's just a decidedly mediocre Pac-12 coach and really hasn't accomplished any different track record than Ricardo Patton. Say what you want about the lack of tradition of men's basketball at CU. Say what you want about the Pac-1 2 being a tough basketball conference. However, at the end of the day no reasonable argument can be made that Tad Boyle is anything but decidedly mediocre as a Pac-12 coach. Through his first seven full seasons at CU Tad Boyle was 149-95 but was only 64-61 in conference play. Successful Pac-12 programs don't rely on non-conference wins to get to the CBI or NIT, or NCAA tourneys. After his first seven full seasons at CU, and Ricardo Patton was starting from a lower floor, he was 121-94 but was only 51-61 in conference play. There is a difference, but Tad coached CU over 244 games those first seven seasons and Ricardo Patton only coached CU over 215. After his first seven years Tad Boyle only had a .610 winning percentage whereas after his first seven years Ricardo Patton had a .562 winning percentage. That's a variance of just .048 between Tad Boyle and Ricardo Patton's winning percentage after seven years. If we just look at conference play after their first seven full seasons, Tad Boyle has a conference winning percentage of just .512, the very definition of mediocre. In comparison Ricardo Patton had a conference winning percentage of .455. The variance between Tad Boyle and Ricardo Patton in conference winning percentage is just .057

(can someone check my maths?)

Ricardo Patton coached four more years for the Buffs and had a winning record and managed a 20 win season. Something that was very rare in Colorado. Additionally, our Buffs hadn't been to the NCAA tournament since 1969 when Ricardo Patton turned the program around and made the Buffs nationally relevant again. Even more impressive was the fact that Patton did that following the train wreck era of Bzdelik's Buffs who only won .383 of their games. Ricardo Patton got the Buffs to the NCAA tournament twice, and the NIT four times at CU.

At Northern Colorado Tad coached four years and managed only ONE season with a winning record. Tad Boyle was just 28-36 in the Big Sky conference play during his time at NoCo. If you hire Tad Boyle for the Ricardo Patton years, and then hire Ricardo Patton for the Tad Boyle years do you expect Ricardo to improve upon what he inherited? I think you reasonably do.

I think its hilarious that a couple of years ago fans were worried that Boyle was going to leave CU to take the Kansas job, or some other higher profile job. At this point can anyone seriously consider Tad Boyle a good college basketball coach? He's been treading water for CU making millions of dollars, and neither has the recruiting aptitude nor the X's and O's scheme acumen to effectively coach at this level. He literally is just a Colorado high school star that flamed out at the college level, and has been handed the golden goose at CU, a program with almost zero expectations. Why? Because Tad Boyle managed to not have a losing season one year out of his four at NoCo! He didn't lose that one time at NoCo, let's give him a lifetime appointment to Coach CU!

What is Tad Ball? Here are his conference final placements in the Pac-12:

5th (tied)
5th (tied)
5th
3rd (tied)
8th (tied)
5th
7th

The Buffs currently sit 6th overall in the Pac-12 for 2017-18 with a mediocre 3-3 conference record.

What is Tad Ball?

Its mediocrity by a coach in over his head, without the chops to develop incoming players, and without the recruiting aptitude to trend the program upward, who quite frankly is just happy to cash his million plus annual salary. Its a stagnant program with a coach that is trying to just survive, not thrive. Tad Boyle gets better player at CU than he did at NoCo, unfortunately, CU doesn't get a better coach.

It will be interesting to compare Rodney Billups's development as a coach at DU (with Ricardo Patton on his staff) to Tad's first four years at NoCo. In the end I think we need to bring Chauncey back to CU to run this program. Unlike Tad, Chauncey wasn't just a HS player who flamed out in college. Chauncey would have the recruiting chops and understands being a HS phenom in Colorado. He would relate to the recruits and kids better.

It is baffling to me how there are no expectations or standards for Men's Basketball at CU. Its like Tad Boyle has compromising pictures of Rick George or something. Nothing else seems to make sense.

Never has this been more appropriate.