Big Picture: What Are Your Expectations For CU Men's Basketball?

[Goose]

I'm just curious, there is no wrong answer here. But basically, I want to know what your expectations for CU men's basketball are as a program. Of these four "realistic" options, which program do you most think CU should realistically achieve? Obviously, we'd all prefer it if we were North Carolina/Duke/Kentucky, but that's not realistic. So what is?

Xavier - Makes the NCAA's every year and hits the Sweet 16 roughly once every four years with an occasional Elite Eight. Since 2001 (Thad Matta's first year), they've made the Elite Eight twice, S16 four times and only missed the tournament once.

Pittsburgh - Makes the NCAA most years, but is usually done the first weekend with an occasional Sweet 16. Since 2003 (Jamie Dixon's first year), they've missed the tournament two times, and made 4 S16s - with two coming in Dixon's first two years. Dixon left to join TCU partially because of criticism from the fanbase over not making it out of the first weekend.

New Mexico - In the last decade, an equal mix of NCAA bids and NIT bids. Since 2007 (Steve Alford's first year) they've made the NCAA four times, the NIT 3 times and missed both twice. In Alford's six years, they went to the Dance 3 times and NIT 3.

Georgia - Just entertain us in the downtime between football ending and spring football starting. Make the tourney roughly one every four years or so. Since 2008, they've made the dance three times and the NIT twice while missing out four times.

 

[dyemeduke]

I say NCAAs regularly with occasional S16s with runs deeper than that on rarer occasions. This is more of my hope though, as opposed to my base expectation, which is more like Pittsburgh/UNM. I voted with my hope.

Prior to Tad, and even before Bz, I would have said UNM was a fine expectation. Tad has raised the expectations with his success; we just have to keep improving on it.

 

[sackman]

I expect nothing and am pleasantly surprised when they show a pulse. The basketball team is a distraction in the offseason.

 

[tante]

5 years ago I would have said Wisconsin in both football and basketball, but they are on another level right now. If we can somehow emulate what they do, I want to do that.

 

[coereg]

I think despite the recent turn of events with CU basketball, they should be a "Pittsburgh" type basketball program under Tad Boyle. They will make or should make the NCAA tourney 2 out of 3 years, and who knows if they can occasionally put together a 2nd weekend run. I think this years team still has an opportunity to rally for a hot finish and a high-NIT birth, perhaps a 1,2, or 3 seed in the NIT - if they get things going quickly.

As for football? This was a really fun year, minus the final two games. After such a long-sickening drought in football, it's honestly gonna take more than just one miraculous year to get me all jacked and excited for CU football again. There is trust that needs to be re-established, and that takes a couple years of playing good high-level football. The problem (for me) is that I can see where the conference was in fact really-really down this year, unfortunately. I do expect for both AZ schools, UCLA, Cal, and Oregon to get way better, and do it very quickly - like immediately better next year. I kind of think that spells some doom for CU. That is until the program can prove its worth.

 

[aghcsm]

...I think this years team still has an opportunity to rally for a hot finish and a high-NIT birth, perhaps a 1,2, or 3 seed in the NIT - if they get things going quickly...

There's an ongoing misunderstanding about the NIT selection process by AB posters. Frankly I didn't understand it either, until 2 years ago. Here are the obstacles to getting an NIT bid:

- NIT offers automatic berths to regular-season conference champs who lose their conference tournament. Every D1 basketball conference is involved in this, and there are a lot. In 2016 there were 15 NIT berths filled this way.

- There are only 32 total teams in the NIT.

So in 2016, 15 berths were filled by teams that almost certainly will not include CU in 2017, leaving 17 at-large invitations. Therefore the Buffs would have had to be in the top 17 teams that missed the NCAA tourney, at least by last year's criteria, to be invited to the NIT. Sure it's possible, but it's not a shoo-in alternative to the NCAAs, not an easy fallback in case we don't make the Big Dance. It's very possibly that if we miss the NCAAs, we go nowhere (assuming Tad learned his lesson about taking a weak, non-motivated team to the CBI).

 

[Scotch]

Xavier

 

[Buffalo Brad]

I really want it to be the Xavier comparison. Not sure that it is going to happen but that is the level the program can get to I believe. Right now, I would be happy with Pittsburg as a comparison because we are not close to that right now.

 

[torero]

There's an ongoing misunderstanding about the NIT selection process by AB posters. Frankly I didn't understand it either, until 2 years ago. Here are the obstacles to getting an NIT bid:

- NIT offers automatic berths to regular-season conference champs who lose their conference tournament. Every D1 basketball conference is involved in this, and there are a lot. In 2016 there were 15 NIT berths filled this way.

- The "first round" NCAA tourney (involving 8 teams, formerly known as the 'play-in' round, which I much prefer because now every team that makes the regular group of 64 can claim they made it to the 2nd round of the NCAAs) - anyway the point is that the 4 losers in this 'first round' also receive automatic NIT berths.

- There are only 32 total teams in the NIT.

So in 2016, 19 berths were filled by teams that almost certainly will not include CU in 2017, leaving 13 at-large invitations. Therefore the Buffs would have had to be in the top 13 teams that missed the NCAA tourney, at least by last year's criteria, to be invited to the NIT. Sure it's possible, but it's not a shoo-in alternative to the NCAAs, not an easy fallback in case we don't make the Big Dance. It's most likely that if we miss the NCAAs, we go nowhere (assuming Tad learned his lesson about taking a weak, non-motivated team to the CBI).

Bold is not accurate.

 

[aghcsm]

Bold is not accurate.

Sorry, could you explain?

 

[Goose]

Sorry, could you explain?

The teams that lose the "play in" games don't make the NIT. They're already in the real tourney and the NIT has already started.

 

[torero]

Sorry, could you explain?

Those teams are not in the NIT. No NCAA tournament losers go to the NIT. In 2016, the first four losers were Vanderbilt, Fairleigh Dickinson, Tulsa, and Southern. None of those teams played in the NIT, and no first four losers ever have. Also, less importantly, it's just semantics, but the NCAA did go back to calling the round of 64 the first round, and the play in games are now just called the first four. The round of 64 was called the second round for a few years, but everyone agreed that was stupid.

 

[aghcsm]

Those teams are not in the NIT. No NCAA tournament losers go to the NIT. In 2016, the first four losers were Vanderbilt, Fairleigh Dickinson, Tulsa, and Southern. None of those teams played in the NIT, and no first four losers ever have. Also, less importantly, it's just semantics, but the NCAA did go back to calling the round of 64 the first round, and the play in games are now just called the first four. The round of 64 was called the second round for a few years, but everyone agreed that was stupid.

Ok glad to hear about the semantic improvement.

Apparently I misunderstood the other issue, which gives a few more slots. I'll correct the original post.

 

[PAC MAN]

Spring football can't be here fast enough.

 

[Chautauqua]

I voted for the Xavier model as aspirational thinking, like many others, not necessarily the current expectation. Obviously we aren't there right now. But if our fanbase doesn't expect that it will never happen.

College sports are very much a self-fulfilling prophecy with some good luck thrown in. At some point Xavier had a good season (here is where you need luck), fans of the program thought it was fun and invested in the program, the increased investment allowed the program the resources to build on that success. The Buffs have had some good years, but needed a bit more luck for the break through (Spencer getting hurt was devastating). If the fan base is willing to invest and believe in the team you can short circuit this process (or have a rich alumni invest his personal millions - the Oregon model). There are things the administration can do to help (please read William Whelan's BSN article for more thoughts on this). At the end of the day it is a rat race though because all that matters is a program's resources relative to other schools that are also actively engaged in program building.

 

[Birch1]

they should be a "Pittsburgh" type basketball program under Tad Boyle.

Agree with this. Not sure Tad can take them higher with his offensive schemes and hard-headedness when it comes to assessing the team he has and how to best utilize the talent.

 

[whatthebuff]

I voted New Mexico, but I'm surprised so many voted for Pitt. I remember them being a number 1 seed not too long ago, something I'm not expecting out of CU.

On the other hand, they do seem like they flame out early in the tourney often, so maybe it is a good comparison after all.

 

[aghcsm]

Voted for Pitt. New Mexico has become current status, and while it's way better than historical, it's not quite satisfying. 2014-15 and 2016-17 are not ok with me, although fit the NM model.

By the way, losing in the NCAA first round routinely is not good for long. Working all season to get that berth, then bowing out immediately, is not satisfying when it happens routinely. I'd need the Buffs to advance with at least one tourney win every 2-3 years to feel the situation was suitable.

 

[jkppkjjkp]

My take on this is that I want to a trend of improvement, and not necessarily match some other ideal. This comes with an understanding that it's going to be two steps forward one step back sort of process. This season and 2014-15 definitely feel like backwards steps.

This year really concerns me because it's the type of season where Tad really needed to succeed if he wasn't going to be able to bring in elite recruits. The top 7 players in the rotation are all Juniors or Seniors (White, XJ, Gordon, Fortune, Collier, King, Miller).

While next year's recruits (Battey, Bey, Schwartz) look very promising; the converse is that Washington, USC, UCLA (2), Arizona, and Oregon all have McDonald's All-Americans in their recruiting classes.

Either the recruiting needs to take another step forward or the results with such an experienced team need to be better. This program feels like it's losing momentum and with the apparent return of quality football it also feels like the program is on the brink of being ignored again.

 

[CVilleBuff]

Pittsburgh is obtainable.

0-5 right now is simply not acceptable. Close losses don't mean ****. A loss is a loss.

 

[GoldStampede]

As someone who isn't a big fan of watching basketball, it is my hope that CU basketball is at least good enough to convince me to watch the big games on tv (I would say actually go to a game or two, but I no longer live in the area) and not miss football so much. This year has been the first year under Tad that I haven't really felt that way, and that sucks, because now the football program has actually given us something that's worth missing.

Kind of a vague answer, but it sounds like the "Pitt" level would be about that point, though I think I would be fine with lesser quality as long as the team still played with fire, heart, and personality, all which seem sorely lacking from this years incarnation of the buffaloes. My favorite CU Basketball team in recent memory was the final Big 12 team, and we didn't even accomplish as much as we would in some later years. So at least to some degree, I'm looking for a way of playing perhaps even more than a level of achievement.

 

[Da Lama]

This program should win 20 EVERY DAMN YEAR. Nothing less. No excuses.

 

[Goose]

This program should win 20 EVERY DAMN YEAR. Nothing less. No excuses.

Would that be Pitt or UNM then?

 

[Buffnik]

Would that be Pitt or UNM then?

You're splitting hairs a bit, I think. Most people don't see much difference among Xavier, Pitt and New Mexico in terms of program prestige & expectations. Xavier's up right now. Pitt's been in one of the program's best periods under Dixon (we'll see about Stallings). New Mexico is a bit down after Alford left.

I guess what I'm saying is that most fans see college hoops in 3 tiers: 1) Elites who are usually ranked and who we can remember getting 1 & 2 seeds in our brackets and also making Final Fours; 2) Programs that suck - almost never in our brackets and can't think of any memorable runs or players; 3) Everybody else from an Auburn (usually irrelevant nationally but has had teams with Sir Charles & Chuck Person) to an Oklahoma (some great teams & years, usually dancing and sometimes a threat... but they're no Duke).

Most Buffs fans would like to see us in the upper part of "3)" and more like an Oklahoma.

 

[Goose]

You're splitting hairs a bit, I think. Most people don't see much difference among Xavier, Pitt and New Mexico in terms of program prestige & expectations. Xavier's up right now. Pitt's been in one of the program's best periods under Dixon (we'll see about Stallings). New Mexico is a bit down after Alford left.

I guess what I'm saying is that most fans see college hoops in 3 tiers: 1) Elites who are usually ranked and who we can remember getting 1 & 2 seeds in our brackets and also making Final Fours; 2) Programs that suck - almost never in our brackets and can't think of any memorable runs or players; 3) Everybody else from an Auburn (usually irrelevant nationally but has had teams with Sir Charles & Chuck Person) to an Oklahoma (some great teams & years, usually dancing and sometimes a threat... but they're no Duke).

Most Buffs fans would like to see us in the upper part of "3)" and more like an Oklahoma.

I probably am. But I'm just curious about this thanks to a group text I had with some Pac-12 fans on Sunday night. Everyone knows that this is a football school, but I'm curious to see how people view basketball.

 

[dyemeduke]

Would that be Pitt or UNM then?

I think us CU fans would say Pitt, but outside of Colorado, the argument could be made that we're more of a UNM. UNM may not be relevant right now, but they've had success. The Pit used to be a very tough place to play, and at least a dozen years ago when I was quasi-living in AQB, UNM bball had a lot of support.

However, being in the Pac12, and wanting to be compared to a program that's been more relevant recently, we CU fans want to be compared to Pitt. I'd also take Wiscy or Purdue. I would love it Tad Boyle stayed here, improved the program in bits and pieces, and became our Gene Keady or Bo Ryan. I respect the hell out of those coaches, but let's face it, they will never be considered ELITE coaches nationwide, and their programs were usually just competitive and tough, except for a few radiant years here and there.

You're splitting hairs a bit, I think. Most people don't see much difference among Xavier, Pitt and New Mexico in terms of program prestige & expectations. Xavier's up right now. Pitt's been in one of the program's best periods under Dixon (we'll see about Stallings). New Mexico is a bit down after Alford left.

I guess what I'm saying is that most fans see college hoops in 3 tiers: 1) Elites who are usually ranked and who we can remember getting 1 & 2 seeds in our brackets and also making Final Fours; 2) Programs that suck - almost never in our brackets and can't think of any memorable runs or players; 3) Everybody else from an Auburn (usually irrelevant nationally but has had teams with Sir Charles & Chuck Person) to an Oklahoma (some great teams & years, usually dancing and sometimes a threat... but they're no Duke).

Most Buffs fans would like to see us in the upper part of "3)" and more like an Oklahoma.

Similar to what I said quoting Goose's comment about Pitt/UNM, I agree that most Buffs fans would like to see ourselves more like an OU. However, OU is a solid shoulder above CU - hands down. I think outsiders honestly could make a good argument that we're a program that fits your "2" category (even though I think we're more like Auburn, which you clearly put in "3"). If we could match OU's record in the last 10-15 years for our next 10-15, I'd be ecstatic.

 

[aghcsm]

You're splitting hairs a bit, I think. Most people don't see much difference among Xavier, Pitt and New Mexico in terms of program prestige & expectations. Xavier's up right now. Pitt's been in one of the program's best periods under Dixon (we'll see about Stallings). New Mexico is a bit down after Alford left.

I guess what I'm saying is that most fans see college hoops in 3 tiers: 1) Elites who are usually ranked and who we can remember getting 1 & 2 seeds in our brackets and also making Final Fours; 2) Programs that suck - almost never in our brackets and can't think of any memorable runs or players; 3) Everybody else from an Auburn (usually irrelevant nationally but has had teams with Sir Charles & Chuck Person) to an Oklahoma (some great teams & years, usually dancing and sometimes a threat... but they're no Duke).

Most Buffs fans would like to see us in the upper part of "3)" and more like an Oklahoma.

The details aren't solid, but the overall point is great - how good do we want (expect) CU basketball to be? Can Tad Boyle take us there - and if not, could we find a better coach for the program? Is being a lot better than we used to be good enough?

Expectations are the root cause of disappointment - at least expectations that fail - so it's good to develop some realism about CU basketball and what it means to each of us.

 

[BlackNGold]

I want to be like Arizona. I think that is more comparable than the others. Colorado is at a recruiting disadvantage because we are a long way from where the good BB players are and we are not considered a place where top players want to go. To fix that you need to change the culture and the expectations. Lute Olson did that at Arizona where there were similar constraints. I want to be fan of a team that everyone knows is a contender every year.

 

[YngC]

I want to be like Arizona. I think that is more comparable than the others. Colorado is at a recruiting disadvantage because we are a long way from where the good BB players are and we are not considered a place where top players want to go. To fix that you need to change the culture and the expectations. Lute Olson did that at Arizona where there were similar constraints. I want to be fan of a team that everyone knows is a contender every year.

Wait...hold on...


WHAT?!

 

[Darth Snow]

I want to be like Arizona. I think that is more comparable than the others. Colorado is at a recruiting disadvantage because we are a long way from where the good BB players are and we are not considered a place where top players want to go. To fix that you need to change the culture and the expectations. Lute Olson did that at Arizona where there were similar constraints. I want to be fan of a team that everyone knows is a contender every year.

That's reasonable.