For the better part of two months, Colorado looked like a team that was going to make the Big 12’s preseason poll look silly.
Tad Boyle’s squad raced out to an 8-0 start, even picking up a trophy in Palm Springs with a Quad 1 win against Washington. It was the kind of early-season surge that usually has basketball fans dreaming of the Big Dance. But as CU hoops has seen too often over the years, the move from the “cupcake” portion of the schedule to the Big 12 gauntlet is less of a transition and more of a high-speed collision with a brick wall.
Since Big 12 play began in earnest, the Buffs have gone 4-7. And while a 14-10 record isn’t a death sentence – CU is probably an NIT team right now — the underlying numbers suggest that CU is a mediocre basketball team.
The problem isn’t the offense.
CU currently ranks 24th nationally in turnover percentage (14.0%). This is an incredible turnaround from last year, when CU couldn’t dribble the ball past the half court line without turning it over. Between junior Barrington Hargress (shooting a ridiculous 50.7% from deep) and freshman sensation Isaiah Johnson (130.2 Offensive Rating), the Buffs have a backcourt that can score with anyone in the country.
So, uhhhhh, John, why isn’t the team very good?
Because CU doesn’t defend the 3. At all.
Colorado’s defense is currently 328th in the country in Opponent 3P%. Read that again. Out of 360-plus Division I teams, there are only about 30 programs worse at defending the arc. Opponents are hitting 36.9% of their threes against the Buffs. In Big 12 play, that’s essentially like leaving the back door unlocked in a neighborhood full of world-class burglars.
| BuffsBlog Analytics | Value | D-I Rank |
| Adj. Offensive Efficiency | 119.2 | 53rd |
| Adj. Defensive Efficiency | 108.0 | 148th |
| Opponent 3P% | 36.9% | 328th |
| Turnover % | 14.0% | 24th |
This basketball team is bizarre. The Buffs are the 48th tallest team in the country, yet they rank 215th in block percentage. CU has the length to contest outside shots — they just don’t. At least they don’t do so effectively. Furthermore, they are disciplined with the ball (24th in TO%), yet they force almost no mistakes on the other end (306th in non-steal turnover percentage). It’s a “polite” defense. And in a league that features the defensive intensity of Houston and Iowa State, being “polite” gets you a 30-point blowout in Ames, which is exactly what happened 2 weeks ago.
The personnel shift has been equally jarring. Isaiah Johnson is an emerging star. His ability to get to the line and finish (57.8% eFG%) is the only reason some of these conference games have stayed competitive. But the veteran core has largely vanished. Post Malone played zero minutes against Baylor and has struggled mightily when he has played. Alon Michaeli is struggling through a freshman wall, posting a 47.4% eFG% that makes it hard to keep him on the floor when the Buffs need a bucket.
KenPom currently projects Colorado to finish 16-15. That’s not good enough, and it may cost Tad Boyle his job. Tad Boyle has the pieces for a high-level offense, but unless he can figure out why a team with this much length is allowing every opponent to treat the perimeter like a lay-up line, CU is going to struggle to be competitive in the Big 12.
To clean your CU hoops palate, here’s a fun video of Isaiah Johnson from earlier in the season:
Want to read more from BuffsBlog? (yes, you do). Check out this story detailing the excitement from signing day last week.
Or check out this story on the CU women’s hoops team before it’s big game tomorrow (Wednesday) night against Houston:
Last, here’s the play from Jade Masogayo that could jumpstart CU’s journey to the Big Dance:
Really interesting stats. I can’t figure out why such a long team can’t better defend the 3. You’d think length would make close outs more effective…..is it that the team doesn’t play hard enough? If that’s the case, then we should be looking at the end of the HCTB era at CU.
Playing hard is a skill. I know that’s a hot take, but I 100% believe it’s true. I don’t think many CU players have that skill.
Agree 100%.
I think it is 1/3 the bigs, 1/3 the youth and 1/3 coaching. If your team is playing hard 1on1, 3 guys on the perimeter or 3-2 zone, 3 guys strong on the perimeter, the young guys/guards playing the perimeter may need more experience, seasoning and growth to just guard a bit better. With the bigs, unless they have beef and athletic shot-blockers, it is tough to defend the drive and shut-down the paint. In coaching, there are a few like Rick Majerus (RIP) who game plan and run junk defenses so they could beat/stay-with much better teams.
I like the longer format personally. But this is still a great write-up, good content as always. This team is definitely confusing from a metrics standpoint. But watching them play I can’t help but draw comparisons to the 2017-18 team with Kin, Bey, and Schwartz. You could see the flashes with that team, but then they would go screw it all up the next week. Find the money to keep Johnson, Sanders, Hargress, Fawaz, and Holland here for another year and I think we’ll be pleasantly suprised for the 26-27 season.
Thanks for your vote!
After last years’ team hit the portal, an NIT bid would have been considered a huge accomplishment. I think most fans were expecting a rebuilding year. The early cupcake schedule and the win against Washington set us up for the Big 12 disappointment we should have seen coming.
I was a Tad Boyle apologist for many years because, who would take the job that would be better? Especially when CU did not / does not invest in basketball. But now, new AD, new MBB coach sounds good to me. In hindsight, we should have gone after Chris Beard. He went to Ole Miss for the SEC money, but that team was even worse than CU. It was a missed opportunity for sure.
I too have been a Boyle supporter. But I think it might be time for new blood. Fernando Lovo has already hired Eric Olen once so it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s a leading candidate if Boyle were let go / retires.
I like that Lovo hired Olen and that has worked out. If Tad retires, resigns or is let go, finding the right replacement will be huge. I think/hope Lovo will be up for the task.
Although I’m not a fan of the angry Hurley at ASU, based on his success as AC under his brother and MAC championship and early success at ASU he was almost a can’t miss hire for ASU. Once at ASU, they recruited very well. Now 10 seasons in, it has not gone well.
I agree that this was going to be a rebuilding year, and to an extent I was pleased when the team over-performed early-on. They are playing so much youth and under-classman often hit a wall into 2nd half of league play. Beating TCU and ASU gives some hope, but in the B12 we are basically outmatched.
Lovo and Tad will have interesting decisions to make. Is this or a bit better about as far as Tad can take us in the B12? With Lovo changing some things around and keeping Tad, is it realistic that they can improve substantially into the Top 1/2 or 1/3 of the B12? If the answers to those questions is no, the result could be a coaching change. However, whoever we get has to be a step-up.
I still think Tad can coach if he wants to, TO’s were addressed this season but a new coach could have access to different quality talent. I don’t blame RG for not pulling the plug last year, since he probably knew his was going to retire and a new HC would be for the new AD to decide.
Good write-up. When I looked at the rest of our season, I came up with 15-16. Tad has been the best coach since I was in school, but he and Buffs are finding tough sledding in the B12. Overall, Tad has had a good/great tenure for CU Hoops, but the last two seasons rough. Over the past 5 years, IMO we were gradually getting softer in the paint and playing D. Even when Battey was here, who I loved, it was not like a had another beefy big. Just not physical enough to play Top-40 teams. Tad’s recruiting has been hit or miss, missing especially on bigs, although some were 4*.
One of Lovo’s 1st major decisions will be whether we need a change and blow things up moving forward. Also, Tad may leave on his terms either retiring or resigning. When looking at a coaching change, the question becomes who could we get?