Way early Pac-12 prediction (CBSsports)

[dyemeduke]

100% serious. Tad is the right coach for the CU program.

Yeah, CitizenKane and I are on the same page on this one. While I agree that Tad is the right coach for the CU program, and I fully expect continued success under him, even after this year's rebuilding season, I firmly do not think he has earned lifetime-level of support. If for some reasons things start really going south, the proof is in the results, and we have to start considering a change. I'm of course not advocating this, or think we're anywhere near this point.

Tenure as a coach is limited to very few who have achieved some magic, undefined formula of success and longevity. Tad hasn't been here terribly long and has done well, but not out-of-this-world-Billy-Donovan-well.

 

[Johnny Juzang]

Yes. Tad has done a fantastic job and the program is the healthiest it has ever been.

I wish I could like this more than once. People forget so quickly.

 

[Goose]

I'll go on record: I'm not ready to make a coaching change EVER

100% serious. Tad is the right coach for the CU program.

Seconded.

 

[Highlander]

100% serious. Tad is the right coach for the CU program.

Seconded.

I do think Tad should be recognized as the most successful CU bball coach in the modern era - and it isn't even a discussion.

That said, I have a question.

When Tad started, we were in the middle of significant infrastructure investments. The resources he has access to today are very different compared to his peers and what his predecessors had access to compared to peer institutions.

A revisit of where CU's BBall program infrastructure and resources are in comparison to other programs today may help frame this properly. I honestly don't know.

 

[YngC]

At some point, you have to decide who you are and come to terms with it.

In the last 30 years, here are the non-blue blood schools to win a title: UNLV, Arkansas, Michigan State, Maryland, UConn (though some would argue they're a blue blood now), Syracuse, Florida, Louisville, Villanova. Okay...so, to win a title, you basically have to be one of the best 10-14 programs of all time. So then we're talking about programs in the level that are Final Four/Elite Eight quality more years than not at least recently...but think about the schools in that discussion. Arizona, Wisconsin...these types of programs. So then we're onto the Sweet 16 type of schools...which are usually the teams that round out your average top 25 poll...Xavier, Oregon(recently), Michigan, Florida State, Miami, Maryland...no one is going to say CU is at a point where similar expectations are reasonable, if they're being honest.

So that leaves CU in a place with a whole lot of darn good programs like UNLV, San Diego State, USC, Washington, Texas (no Sweet 16 since 2008), Georgetown (none since 2007), Illinois, Oklahoma State, Pitt, Iowa, Creighton...think about that. Those are programs with history, proper financial support, facilities, recruiting ties, rabid fan bases for hoops, and more. You cannot talk about expectations for the program until you realize how nuts it is that we're now talking about how CU can pass, on a consistent level, programs like these and move into that next group. Once you realize that, ask yourself what's standing in the way. Here's a hint, if you say "Tad", you're missing the entire point and really have no business talking college hoops.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

I'll go on record: I'm not ready to make a coaching change EVER

100% serious. Tad is the right coach for the CU program.

Seconded.

I am on board. I have seen 25 years of bad basketball (with 2 good years with Chauncey). Do not want to go back and Tad has the program in the best place it has been in since the 1940s. He is and should be the coach at CU. Perfect fit for where we live in the college basketball world.

 

[PAC MAN]

I'd rather replace Boyle with someone in-house. If we can find a young coach who can really coach, connect with high school kids, and recruit well, that would be a great thing to have. Could Rodney Billups be that guy that replaces Tad?

 

[Goose]

I'd rather replace Boyle with someone in-house. If we can find a young coach who can really coach, connect with high school kids, and recruit well, that would be a great thing to have. Could Rodney Billups be that guy that replaces Tad?

No.

Edit - to clarify, it's not the "Tad should never leave" (although IMO, he should never leave until he wants to), it's that Rodney has a long way to go before he's a good choice. I was sky high on him when we first bumped him up. And he achieved the goal that was put in front of him (get Dom to commit). And it's hard to put it all on him, but compare our recruiting classes under Rodney vs the ones with Grier.

 

[Medford M.]

I don't consider Wisconsin to be in the top 16 echelon.

 

[YngC]

I don't consider Wisconsin to be in the top 16 echelon.

Nine S16 or better in the last 16 years and they haven't missed an NCAA Tournament since 1998.

 

[PAC MAN]

Back to topic...CU #10 in the P12? I can't see CU finishing that low but flying under the radar this season will be a good thing after last season's disappointment.

 

[Buffs Basketball Fan]

Cant see being 10 but there are some certainties going in.
Studying history:
CU hasnt beaten Utah in several seasons
Stanford always a dark horse pick but dont produce
Oregon may be down but the atmosphere during home games gives them almost 9 wins in conference, split on road give 13 - 5
Arizona is loaded and they dont lose at home either.
USC had no NBA defections and possibly get a reclassified top recruit
Washington schools are beatable
UCLA will step back, but not as far as one would think

CU winds up battling ASU/OSU for 7th

 

[torero]

Cant see being 10 but there are some certainties going in.
Studying history:
CU hasnt beaten Utah in several seasons
Stanford always a dark horse pick but dont produce
Oregon may be down but the atmosphere during home games gives them almost 9 wins in conference, split on road give 13 - 5
Arizona is loaded and they dont lose at home either.
USC had no NBA defections and possibly get a reclassified top recruit
Washington schools are beatable
UCLA will step back, but not as far as one would think

CU winds up battling ASU/OSU for 7th

Regarding the bolded: Kyle Kuzma is gone, thankfully. That guy murdered the Buffs the last three years. I think his games against the Buffs alone pushed him into the first round.

 

[Buffnik]

Can Namon Wright give us a Carlon Brown type season?

12.6 points
44.7% shooting (30.7% from 3pt)
72.3% FT shooting
3.8 rebounds
2.0 assists / 1.9 turnovers
0.8 steals
0.3 blocks

I think that's about right, actually. His shooting % should be a bit lower than that, but better from 3 and not as good from 2 (where Carlon shot 52.9%). Productivity looks about where I'd expect Namon to be on raw stats.

Namon's stats for his 2 seasons at Mizzou from a best/worst standpoint:

9.6 points/ 6.8 points
41.4% shooting/ 35.5% shooting
38.8% 3pt/ 31.5% 3pt
5.2 rebounds/ 2.3 rebounds
1.3 assists/ 0.6 assists
1.2 turnovers/ 1.8 turnovers
0.6 steals/ 0.5 steals
0.2 blocks/ 0.1 blocks

We desperately need "good Namon" and for that to be a progression from previous D1 performance.

 

[J-R-K]

I'll go on record: I'm not ready to make a coaching change EVER

Hyperbole or not, this sentiment is just silly. Funny thing is I don't think any really dislike Boyle but rather the "haters" spawned in response to this kinda of unmitigated, blind, and completely over the top love that so many people have for the guy.

Has he generally done a nice job with the program? Yes. Has his tenure been the best in CU's basketball history? Yes. Is CU a difficult place to build a great program? Yes. I'm happy to acknowledge these things.

That being said at the end of the day over the course of seven years he's won just one NCAA tournament game (and that was six years ago), we still have never finished better then fifth place in the conference standings, and we have a .500 record in conference play. And we don't even play in what has been a very strong conference. The program also is not exactly trending upwards over the past few seasons.

These are hardly things to get excited about or to justify the admiration Boyle gets from so many fans. I think most people get to caught up in grading Boyle on a curve relative to CU's basketball history rather then just looking at his tenure for what it is on its own.

If you're comfortable with a solid but unspectacular basketball program that every year will be in the .500 to NIT to sneaking into the NCAA tournament type of a range than Boyle is a guy who should be here for many years to come. And give CU's basketball history I don't blame people for being comfortable with this.

However if you have "crazy" notions like actually wining more then one tournament game per decade or being better then a middle of the pack team in conference then I think after seven seasons, and an eights that probably won't be very good, it's unlikely that Tad is the guy to get you there. I understand with new hires the grass isn't always greener, but at a certain point the status quo has to change. We're not at that point yet, but the results do need to improve soon.

 

[torero]

Hyperbole or not, this sentiment is just silly. Funny thing is I don't think any really dislike Boyle but rather the "haters" spawned in response to this kinda of unmitigated, blind, and completely over the top love that so many people have for the guy.

Has he generally done a nice job with the program? Yes. Has his tenure been the best in CU's basketball history? Yes. Is CU a difficult place to build a great program? Yes. I'm happy to acknowledge these things.

That being said at the end of the day over the course of seven years he's won just one NCAA tournament game (and that was six years ago), we still have never finished better then fifth place in the conference standings, and we have a .500 record in conference play. And we don't even play in what has been a very strong conference. The program also is not exactly trending upwards over the past few seasons.

These are hardly things to get excited about or to justify the admiration Boyle gets from so many fans. I think most people get to caught up in grading Boyle on a curve relative to CU's basketball history rather then just looking at his tenure for what it is on its own.

If you're comfortable with a solid but unspectacular basketball program that every year will be in the .500 to NIT to sneaking into the NCAA tournament type of a range than Boyle is a guy who should be here for many years to come. And give CU's basketball history I don't blame people for being comfortable with this.

However if you have "crazy" notions like actually wining more then one tournament game per decade or being better then a middle of the pack team in conference then I think after seven seasons, and an eights that probably won't be very good, it's unlikely that Tad is the guy to get you there. I understand with new hires the grass isn't always greener, but at a certain point the status quo has to change. We're not at that point yet, but the results do need to improve soon.

This was actually a reasonable post, so I'll engage.Your overall conclusion is wrong, but you're not bomb throwing either, so I'll tell you where you are mistaken.

-"And we don't even play in what has been a very strong conference. The program also is not exactly trending upwards over the past few seasons."
I think you're trying to say we haven't been in a strong conference. There has been a couple seasons of pretty poor overall conference play since we joined the PAC. But there were 3 legitimate final four contenders last year. With Oregon making it. One relatively lousy season after an NCAA tournament team does not indicate a downward trend.

-"I think most people get to caught up in grading Boyle on a curve relative to CU's basketball history rather then just looking at his tenure for what it is on its own"
Should we be comparing ourselves to the blue bloods? That is far more ridiculous than comparing CU to it's historical performance. Historically, this is a bad basketball program.

-"it's unlikely that Tad is the guy to get you there. I understand with new hires the grass isn't always greener, but at a certain point the status quo has to change. We're not at that point yet, but the results do need to improve soon."
You seem to be under the impression that historically poor basketball programs can just turn the switch on a new coaching hire and then be good. Good luck with that mentality. You're the delusional one, not those of us who admire Tad.

 

[CUFan]

Hyperbole or not, this sentiment is just silly. Funny thing is I don't think any really dislike Boyle but rather the "haters" spawned in response to this kinda of unmitigated, blind, and completely over the top love that so many people have for the guy.

Has he generally done a nice job with the program? Yes. Has his tenure been the best in CU's basketball history? Yes. Is CU a difficult place to build a great program? Yes. I'm happy to acknowledge these things.

That being said at the end of the day over the course of seven years he's won just one NCAA tournament game (and that was six years ago), we still have never finished better then fifth place in the conference standings, and we have a .500 record in conference play. And we don't even play in what has been a very strong conference. The program also is not exactly trending upwards over the past few seasons.

These are hardly things to get excited about or to justify the admiration Boyle gets from so many fans. I think most people get to caught up in grading Boyle on a curve relative to CU's basketball history rather then just looking at his tenure for what it is on its own.

If you're comfortable with a solid but unspectacular basketball program that every year will be in the .500 to NIT to sneaking into the NCAA tournament type of a range than Boyle is a guy who should be here for many years to come. And give CU's basketball history I don't blame people for being comfortable with this.

However if you have "crazy" notions like actually wining more then one tournament game per decade or being better then a middle of the pack team in conference then I think after seven seasons, and an eights that probably won't be very good, it's unlikely that Tad is the guy to get you there. I understand with new hires the grass isn't always greener, but at a certain point the status quo has to change. We're not at that point yet, but the results do need to improve soon.

I too think this is a sensible post, mostly. Everything is fairly reasonable (and I have some of the same concerns), with the exception of the conclusion. I think Tad has earned a lot more time and rope. I think building hoops at CU is largely a pretty difficult job: Not a ton of interest in hoops in Colorado. Not a ton of homegrown talent. And geographic recruiting island compared to the rest of the conference.

 

[J-R-K]

This was actually a reasonable post, so I'll engage.Your overall conclusion is wrong, but you're not bomb throwing either, so I'll tell you where you are mistaken.

-"And we don't even play in what has been a very strong conference. The program also is not exactly trending upwards over the past few seasons."
I think you're trying to say we haven't been in a strong conference. There has been a couple seasons of pretty poor overall conference play since we joined the PAC. But there were 3 legitimate final four contenders last year. With Oregon making it. One relatively lousy season after an NCAA tournament team does not indicate a downward trend.

-"I think most people get to caught up in grading Boyle on a curve relative to CU's basketball history rather then just looking at his tenure for what it is on its own"
Should we be comparing ourselves to the blue bloods? That is far more ridiculous than comparing CU to it's historical performance. Historically, this is a bad basketball program.

-"it's unlikely that Tad is the guy to get you there. I understand with new hires the grass isn't always greener, but at a certain point the status quo has to change. We're not at that point yet, but the results do need to improve soon."
You seem to be under the impression that historically poor basketball programs can just turn the switch on a new coaching hire and then be good. Good luck with that mentality. You're the delusional one, not those of us who admire Tad.

- Of course there have been some good teams/seasons but generally speaking the Pac has been one of the weakest power conferences since we joined.

- I never said things were trending downward, just that they weren't trending upwards. That being said in the likely event we don't make the tournament this season that would be two straight years and three of the last of four. I would consider that a downward trend.

- I don't think we should be comparing CU's result much to anyone, not crappy teams of past years or blue blood programs, but rather evaluating them on their own merits. When you do that we have essentially been a middle of the pack power conference program.

- I said with new hires the grass isn't always greener. Of course it's possible we could end up with a worse situation then we have now, but we could also end up with a better one. At a certain point assuming things keep continuing as they have been I think it's worth the risk. Like I said it's just a question of what your expectations are. If you're happy with the status quo I totally understand that. But I also really don't think it's unreasonable to want/achieve finishing better then fifth in the conference and wining more then one tournament game...things that Tad has not been able to do.

 

[J-R-K]

Not a ton of interest in hoops in Colorado. Not a ton of homegrown talent. And geographic recruiting island compared to the rest of the conference.

If one of the recruiting gurus wants to correct me on this feel free to do so, but this seems to be much more of an issue with football recruiting whereas basketball recruiting is more of a national thing. Most basketball recruits aren't as focused on staying home and in general seems like you have players from all of the country ending up in all different regions with regularity.

 

[Buffs Basketball Fan]

Will the budget increase
Will they get the Champion Center type facilities
Will the fan base increase
You need a homegrown national figure and hope hit big
5 stars aren't coming here
Next year could have growing pains with youth and inexperience.
Ucla last year added Ball and Leaf but had a core in Alford Hamilton Welsh.

Hope works out and support the Buffs

 

[Da Lama]

If one of the recruiting gurus wants to correct me on this feel free to do so, but this seems to be much more of an issue with football recruiting whereas basketball recruiting is more of a national thing. Most basketball recruits aren't as focused on staying home and in general seems like you have players from all of the country ending up in all different regions with regularity.

Relative to the rest of the nation, top to bottom Colorado HS basketball is not good.

 

[MtnBuff]

If one of the recruiting gurus wants to correct me on this feel free to do so, but this seems to be much more of an issue with football recruiting whereas basketball recruiting is more of a national thing. Most basketball recruits aren't as focused on staying home and in general seems like you have players from all of the country ending up in all different regions with regularity.

I'm not a recruiting guru or even close.

Some things don't take a lot of expertise to see though. Basketball players do tend to be willing to move away from home but getting them to a place like Colorado isn't as easy as you make it sound. Tad has gotten a fair number of top 150 type recruits but he hasn't made the jump into the top 50 types. Those players are the ones who consider themselves to be potential one and done types. They want to go to a school that already has multiple final four or at least sweet 16 appearances. They are rarely going someplace other than the blue bloods. Take the recruiting classes for UK, Kansas, Duke, Zona, etc. out of the mix and of the top 50 you only have about 10 left. Most of those will either stay home or follow a connection to an AAU coach or a friend.

Tad has done an excellent job keeping top players in Colorado but as others have said there just aren't that many who come out of this state. We aren't a big name program. They don't put our highlights on sportscenter and we aren't getting nationally televised games in prime network slots. The networks would rather show a bad UCLA team than an above average Colorado team so we aren't in the minds of high school kids or the adults who are in their ears.

 

[Goose]

Relative to the rest of the nation, top to bottom Colorado HS basketball is ****ing horrible.

FIFY.