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 is in the top 30 paid coaches in the country.
- Thread starter OsideBuff
- Start date
not when you are going 27-5 you can't.
Interesting stat...and yeah...IMO...he should be. I'd think it also has to do with the amount of revenue the team brings in.
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
So....making the top 68 teams four out of five years is what you should expect when paid as a top 30 coach? Taking Big 5 conference teams beyond the first round requires talent...and Tad is not recruiting the talent at the level that will take him much beyond the performance of the past few seasons. He is ninth or so in the Pac 12 in recuriting....since his class with the four top 150's...he has seen his recruiting drop. He cannot even close on the best players in Colorado. I dont think people give enough credit to Bz for the turnaround..facilities...and I think Tad's best team was his first year to be honest...which was Bz kids. Tad is a good coach.....has he peaked? His teams still seem to be sloppy and inconsistent....I think one of the kids he has coming in next year could be the real deal... He, like most teams, needs that glue PG that perhaps Akyzili (sp) will provide...dont think Collier is that guy...
hah. hahahahahahaha.
Is the new narrative that Tad is an excellent basketball coach who doesn't recruit well enough?
CU has been missing the 1st round & Lottery talent needed to take it to the next level. I'll grant that. But I think we can all agree that Tad has built quality depth that most of the conference does not have and that CU did not have when he got here. So he has found and developed good players. Also, when we look at guys like George King and similar unheralded players who have performed very well at CU I think we have to grant that Tad finding great talent others miss is a trend or fact... not unsustainable good luck.
CU has been missing the 1st round & Lottery talent needed to take it to the next level. I'll grant that. But I think we can all agree that Tad has built quality depth that most of the conference does not have and that CU did not have when he got here. So he has found and developed good players. Also, when we look at guys like George King and similar unheralded players who have performed very well at CU I think we have to grant that Tad finding great talent others miss is a trend or fact... not unsustainable good luck.
Yes, I think that making the field of 64 (CU has yet to play in the first 4) 4/5 years deserves top 30 pay when fewer than 30 coaches have had that level of sustained success.
I will respectfully disagree with your point that '10-'11 was Tad's best team. I think that both this year's Buffs and the '11-'12 Buffs were better than the '10-'11 team.
I will also disagree that recruiting has been unacceptable under Tad, as well. CU is not (and probably will never be) one of the premier "shoe schools" that attract McD all-american players, so Tad needs to find players that fit his system and develop them- a good model is Wisconsin. Since '10-'11, Wisconsin has bowed out in the first round once, Sweet Sixteen twice, the Final Four once, and the Finals once. They're in the Sweet 16 again this year. Over that time frame according to 247 composite rankings, CU has recruited more 4* players (4 to 2, one of whom didn't even really play for Wisconsin), and has an more top 25 classes (1 to 0). Wisconsin also has a very similar recruiting base in terms of population size. We need to try to be Wisconsin.
as to the PG point- it seems to me (and I'm more of a casual fan) that Tad prefers combo guards as opposed to traditional PGs.
Here is my problem with recruiting under Tad. It always seems like we are going after guy very late. I compared the guys int he rivals prospect database that have any Colorado interest versus the rest of the PAC:12. Here is how we stack up
Arizona: 33 players
Arizona State: 27 players
California: 34 players
Colorado: 9 players
Oregon: 26 players
Oregon State: 14 players
Stanford: 33 players
Washington: 10 players
Washington State: 10 players
UCLA: 32 players
USC: 42 players
Utah: 14 players
so far we are linked to 9 players, two of which are signed elsewhere. For a team that is going to lose, White, Fortune, Fletch, XJ and Wes, I would expect to see us going after quite a few players. I can't see many teams losing more players than we will next year. When you consider that we lose both of our combo forward/guards in XJ and Fletch, I'm worried that we are not grooming a replacement, unless that player is Guzonjic. I am almost wondering if Tad is going guard/shooting guard heavy now to have an off year in 2018 to make a run in 2019/2020 with senior guards and get young wings and forwards.
Anyone know why Colorado seems to be lagging behind the rest of the PAC:12 in interested players?
Arizona: 33 players
Arizona State: 27 players
California: 34 players
Colorado: 9 players
Oregon: 26 players
Oregon State: 14 players
Stanford: 33 players
Washington: 10 players
Washington State: 10 players
UCLA: 32 players
USC: 42 players
Utah: 14 players
so far we are linked to 9 players, two of which are signed elsewhere. For a team that is going to lose, White, Fortune, Fletch, XJ and Wes, I would expect to see us going after quite a few players. I can't see many teams losing more players than we will next year. When you consider that we lose both of our combo forward/guards in XJ and Fletch, I'm worried that we are not grooming a replacement, unless that player is Guzonjic. I am almost wondering if Tad is going guard/shooting guard heavy now to have an off year in 2018 to make a run in 2019/2020 with senior guards and get young wings and forwards.
Anyone know why Colorado seems to be lagging behind the rest of the PAC:12 in interested players?
You need to stop saying this he's in the top 30 paid coaches who made the tournament not the top 30 in the country, there are roughly 30 more coaches that are paid more than Tad who didn't make the tourney. Tad somewhere between 55-65 in the country.
Please try to use accurate data and not make things up.
HOLY **** - I jsut read what you quoted - I think SDB is Jimmy Wood.
I added it in my post though and want to correct the data - what SDB is working from is a ranking of only the coaches who danced - go check the link, no Rick Pitino, no Larry Brown, no Steve Alford - all who make 50% or more more than Tad. I did a rough run on the data as at times it is incomplete but - Tad is much closer to 60th than he is to 30th if you include all the coaches.
CU does not and has never paid well.
Last edited:
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
Earth to goober....Tad, LAST SUMMER, was the SECOND highest paid coach in the P12....and THAT puts him in the top 30 in the country...the 1.5M in the USA Today was obviously BS....he made, with all his benefits, etc...almost 2.5M...read it and weep... The Buffs are definitnely NOT in the top 3 programs in the Pac 12....http://www.nwherald.com/2015/07/13/college-athletics-pac-12-conference-financial-rankings/axuhifa/
Buffs aren't a Top 3 program in the Pac-12? I guess it depends on your metric. Since we've joined, I'd say #1 Arizona, #2 Oregon, #3...??? Buffs have had the most consistency of the rest and do have a Pac-12 tourney title on the resume. Others have Sweet 16 years to go along with seasons with no post-season and less participation in the NCAAT, in particular.
The only thing that would lead to arguing as emphatically as you are would be if you judge the success of a program based on the Rivals ranks of its recruiting classes (which, of course, ignores all transfers in & out while also being infinitely less relevant than w's and l's).
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
Where is your data coming from...here is FROM the SCHOOL... http://www.nwherald.com/2015/07/13/college-athletics-pac-12-conference-financial-rankings/axuhifa/... Tad second highest paid coach in the P12...and CU doesnt pay well...LOL...now that is funny. Mac in the top 5, Tad in top 2....and that is not good...okey dokey.
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
Buffs have only finished in the top 3 ONCE (tied)....have only made it past the quarterfinals in the P12 tournament ONCE.... I guess we all have different standards...paid at the top 2 and never finished there...averages out to around FIFTH in the conference... Facts....Facts... This is not Rivals ranks...this is actual finishes. No way does his teams performance warrant being the second highest paid coach in the conference...
2011–12 Colorado 24–11 11–7 T–5th NCAA Third Round
2012–13 Colorado 21–12 10–8 5th NCAA Second Round
2013–14 Colorado 23–12 10–8 T–3rd NCAA Second Round
2014–15 Colorado 16–18 7–11 T–8th CBI Quarterfinals
2015–16 Colorado 22–12 10-8 5th NCAA First Round
OsideBuff
Dimwitted ****
Information AS REPORTED by the schools.... And that is what the coaches were paid going into this year...SO IT IS CURRENT...yes, a few coaches fired...but until the schools report for the past eyar, it is the most current...unless you have something else from which to base your premise....which you dont.
That is why i asked about your data set, and you confirmed it was from that link. Incidentally your first link has Boyle's salary as 1.5 which did rank him 30th like you asserted. Now you have a new link for us, with already identified aged data but that I can tell you for sure is incorrect on Millers and Alford thier base salaries are higher than the listed total compensation (explained potentially by the fact this is older data, Miller specifically is closer to 3.5 million now and Alford's base is 2.63 before incentives.
Here is a link from 2016 when tad signed his extension:
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29530909/cu-boulder-mens-basketball-coach-tad-boyle-gets
It quotes: "Boyle is in his sixth season with the Buffs this year and earns roughly $1.5 million in salary and other benefits." it also notes these are the same terms he has been under for a while, specifically since his last raise in June of 2013 - he MAY at the time have been in the top 2-3 in conference as pointed out by other Furd/SC dont report but that is certainly no longer the case.
Here are more details on Boyle's actual contract for you: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23638045/boyles-new-contract-includes-big-raise-pay-coach
He makes 1.5 all in.
More sources:
http://newsok.com/article/feed/969205
http://hoopdirt.com/tad-boyle-receives-one-year-contract-extension-at-colorado/
http://www.buffzone.com/ci_27938361/cu-mens-basketball-regents-approve-new-contract-tad
For fun I checked the football coaches and assistant pool data as well, much of that is inconsistent with what is being reported elsewhere.
If Boyle made 2.4 million in 2013/14 that means a host of papers were wrong and Boyle since then has taken a 900K pay cut - seems like something that would have hit the news. Looking into Mac's deal now but he's never made the amount you quoted either - he signed a 5 year 10mm deal that would have been in effect for that season - I doubt we ave him 3 of the 10 million in year 1.
Last edited:
Some googling and reading got me to the answer about these numbers being quoted.
Those numbers for Boyle and MacIntyre, which are 50% higher than anything quoted anywhere, are are total potential compensation numbers for the coaches, in other words that is what they make if every performance escalator is hit. The only way they can make that much is by winning a National title.
Boyle and Mac have incentives built in for:
- regular season win total
- conf championship
- post season
- non-BCS bowls
- BCS bowls
- National titles
So if either of them had won a Natty in 2013/14 they'd have been paid those quoted numbers, and this point would be moo.
Those numbers for Boyle and MacIntyre, which are 50% higher than anything quoted anywhere, are are total potential compensation numbers for the coaches, in other words that is what they make if every performance escalator is hit. The only way they can make that much is by winning a National title.
Boyle and Mac have incentives built in for:
- regular season win total
- conf championship
- post season
- non-BCS bowls
- BCS bowls
- National titles
So if either of them had won a Natty in 2013/14 they'd have been paid those quoted numbers, and this point would be moo.
Last edited:
aghcsm
Well-Known Member
#30 sounds about right to me. #10 would be too much, #50 would be too low. Tad Boyle has elevated CU basketball to a routine 20-win level with routine NCAA playoff participation. That's historically good for the Buffs. Regardless about the recruiting player level, game day coaching, etc - the outcome is historically good.
I don't get the feeling that any discussion pointing out Tad's success will get any response from the original poster except a counter-argument.
I don't get the feeling that any discussion pointing out Tad's success will get any response from the original poster except a counter-argument.
He's gonna go quiet rather than concede
Proportionally CU seems to like escalators more than our conference foes - which is interesting given that many fans think the school isnt hard enough on their coaches performance. Altman for instance only has about 20% of his potential comp in escalators where as Boyle and Mac have ~50%
Thanks Bohn?