Glenn vs DC vs Bohl by Sagarin

[ragtimejoe1]

Well, I think this has been settled. DC was the worst which forever killed anyone dare mentioning innovative offenses in WYO.

The only thing that changed, imo, is that I now consider Bohl less than or equal to Glenn rather than equal to Glenn. If Bohl didn't have Josh, he'd be firmly in the less than Glenn category.

Say what you want but it does matter to look back at WYO resources relative to conference peers and conference strength. Bohl has been positioned best in terms of resources and had the weakest conference.

DC was the worst? Compared to who? He was far better than Glenn. He got us to 3d in the conference (5-2) with road wins against Air Force and San Diego st.. He got us to 2 bowl games in 5 years and he was 4-1 against csewe.

Joe Glenn is the single worst coach in the last 40, maybe even 50 years of Wyoming football with the exception of Vic ( who was here only 3 years). Glenn's only winning season (7-5) was when he was 3-5 in the conference. We were 7th or 8th in the conference in 4 of his 6 years. And please stop with this relative strength argument. He lost to the worst Sonny Lubick teams. In fact Sonny was fired and then Glenn lost to his replacement - who was an enormous dud, even by csewe standards.
Glenn got a pass for the horrible Vic years. But in some ways, we were even worse under Glenn. During Glenn's last year, we were playing a qb who must have been 25 lbs overweight. Then, just to prove it was no fluke, Joe went to South Dakota and went a stellar 12-34 in 4 years. We never had worse talent on the field than the Glenn era.

Bohl has 4 seasons with only 2 conference wins in a FAR weaker MWC. He has two other seasons at 4-4-.
Glenn had 4 seasons with 2 wins or less (1 season with 1 win). 1 season with 3 wins (not that much different than 4) and 1 season with 5 wins (Bohl had 1 5 and 1 6). Their overall conference record isn't that much different. Both rarely challenge good teams, are 50-50 with average teams, and mostly but not always beat bad teams.

You are right though, DC is right in there in with both guys in terms of wins and never beating quality teams.

So, yeah, splitting hairs. Glenn, to me, gets more leniency when judging very similar results as Bohl and DC because the MWC was that much better. I could be wrong, but seems like the ooc was a little tougher in the Glenn years as well, but I might be thinking of schedules before Glenn.

If Glenn is the worst coach in the last 40 years, Bohl is equally as bad.

[307bball]

It says something when the argument is not around who was the best... Instead we sit around and try to figure out who was the worst. Sad state of affairs.

[cowpoke pride]

I do agree that our perception of each of the three of them is influenced by who was before them. Had the Koennig era happened directly before Bohl was hired, I think most people would hold him in higher regard than he currently is-despite the "weaker" conference.

[ragtimejoe1]

I do agree that our perception of each of the three of them is influenced by who was before them. Had the Koennig era happened directly before Bohl was hired, I think most people would hold him in higher regard than he currently is-despite the "weaker" conference.

You are probably right. Still, that weaker schedule is important in evaluating progress. We got better because the schedule got softer.

Other than a year if I remember correctly, Glenn had 2 P5 schools ooc and sometimes bsu mixed in with those P5 schools. Then he had byu, TCU, and Utah. He had Rocky Long-coached Lobos and a csu team that was in and out of the top 60 or so. AF is always AF. In other words, he had way more teams in the "likely loss" category for both coaches. Based on Bohl's performance against teams in the top 60-70, it's safe to say his record would be equal to or less than Glenn's against a Glenn-like schedule.

I like both guys but neither has had what I would consider success. Both built mediocre programs that beat lower tier teams. Running sos as a covariate and there is no statistical difference between the two.

[Wyovanian]

I do agree that our perception of each of the three of them is influenced by who was before them. Had the Koennig era happened directly before Bohl was hired, I think most people would hold him in higher regard than he currently is-despite the "weaker" conference.

You are probably right. Still, that weaker schedule is important in evaluating progress. We got better because the schedule got softer.

Other than a year if I remember correctly, Glenn had 2 P5 schools ooc and sometimes bsu mixed in with those P5 schools. Then he had byu, TCU, and Utah. He had Rocky Long-coached Lobos and a csu team that was in and out of the top 60 or so. AF is always AF. In other words, he had way more teams in the "likely loss" category for both coaches. Based on Bohl's performance against teams in the top 60-70, it's safe to say his record would be equal to or less than Glenn's against a Glenn-like schedule.

I like both guys but neither has had what I would consider success. Both built mediocre programs that beat lower tier teams. Running sos as a covariate and there is no statistical difference between the two.

Actually, there is a number not being discussed that is a factor- Bohl's +/- $2M a year. What's the cost of each win?

[307bball]

I do agree that our perception of each of the three of them is influenced by who was before them. Had the Koennig era happened directly before Bohl was hired, I think most people would hold him in higher regard than he currently is-despite the "weaker" conference.

You are probably right. Still, that weaker schedule is important in evaluating progress. We got better because the schedule got softer.

Other than a year if I remember correctly, Glenn had 2 P5 schools ooc and sometimes bsu mixed in with those P5 schools. Then he had byu, TCU, and Utah. He had Rocky Long-coached Lobos and a csu team that was in and out of the top 60 or so. AF is always AF. In other words, he had way more teams in the "likely loss" category for both coaches. Based on Bohl's performance against teams in the top 60-70, it's safe to say his record would be equal to or less than Glenn's against a Glenn-like schedule.

I like both guys but neither has had what I would consider success. Both built mediocre programs that beat lower tier teams. Running sos as a covariate and there is no statistical difference between the two.

Actually, there is a number not being discussed that is a factor- Bohl's +/- $2M a year. What's the cost of each win?

The salary thing keeps coming back...and, to be fair, college football coach salary is very high. Does the amount paid assuage a bad season? Imagine that Craig Bohl was one of the lowest paid coaches...does anybody say to themselves.."well...getting beat by UNM two years in a row is certainly not ideal, but man...what a deal we are getting on the coaches salary!"...Or...what if we exceded expectations this year and won 10 games?...do we enjoy the wins but kick ourselves for paying Bohl so much money? Maybe that salary number is always in the back of fan's minds and I'm in the minority here....wouldn't be the first time ..hehe.

The criticism of Bohl should remain centered on the result on the field...and there is plenty there to criticize. If you want to rate Wyoming coaches historically, compensation does not factor in. Now...take an axe to the athletic department all you want if you are bent out of shape by how much the state doles out to these guys. That discussion gets into a broader topic that has to do with college athletics in general and the arms race of coach salary and facility construction. I don't envy AD's at places like Wyoming that have fan bases with expectations that they be competitive while their ability to generate revenue will forever lag comparable institutions merely due to market size.

[bullbugle307]

That kinda stuff does matter to me. We've poured money into facilities and coaching while our state finances have been suffering. About 5 or 6 years ago or so when I started on this board, I was questioning all that and whether the juice was worth the squeeze so to speak. I pointed out that we could pour all the money we wanted into coaching and facilities and we'd still have a hard time getting talent because we're Wyoming. Most of you said I was an idiot. Many of you thought we could buy our way to a MW Championship and a NY6 bowl, which seems laughable now. Now, even then I didn't think College football would change the way it has and the way its going, but it appears the powers that be are intent on relegating teams like ours to a farm league, thus making that magical season that much further from being possible. The worst part is, Bohl played the entire state. We gave him everything he asked for and he failed to deliver on his promises. Now we look like fools.

[Wyovanian]

I do agree that our perception of each of the three of them is influenced by who was before them. Had the Koennig era happened directly before Bohl was hired, I think most people would hold him in higher regard than he currently is-despite the "weaker" conference.

You are probably right. Still, that weaker schedule is important in evaluating progress. We got better because the schedule got softer.

Other than a year if I remember correctly, Glenn had 2 P5 schools ooc and sometimes bsu mixed in with those P5 schools. Then he had byu, TCU, and Utah. He had Rocky Long-coached Lobos and a csu team that was in and out of the top 60 or so. AF is always AF. In other words, he had way more teams in the "likely loss" category for both coaches. Based on Bohl's performance against teams in the top 60-70, it's safe to say his record would be equal to or less than Glenn's against a Glenn-like schedule.

I like both guys but neither has had what I would consider success. Both built mediocre programs that beat lower tier teams. Running sos as a covariate and there is no statistical difference between the two.

Actually, there is a number not being discussed that is a factor- Bohl's +/- $2M a year. What's the cost of each win?

The salary thing keeps coming back...and, to be fair, college football coach salary is very high. Does the amount paid assuage a bad season? Imagine that Craig Bohl was one of the lowest paid coaches...does anybody say to themselves.."well...getting beat by UNM two years in a row is certainly not ideal, but man...what a deal we are getting on the coaches salary!"...Or...what if we exceded expectations this year and won 10 games?...do we enjoy the wins but kick ourselves for paying Bohl so much money? Maybe that salary number is always in the back of fan's minds and I'm in the minority here....wouldn't be the first time ..hehe.

The criticism of Bohl should remain centered on the result on the field...and there is plenty there to criticize. If you want to rate Wyoming coaches historically, compensation does not factor in. Now...take an axe to the athletic department all you want if you are bent out of shape by how much the state doles out to these guys. That discussion gets into a broader topic that has to do with college athletics in general and the arms race of coach salary and facility construction. I don't envy AD's at places like Wyoming that have fan bases with expectations that they be competitive while their ability to generate revenue will forever lag comparable institutions merely due to market size.

So there should be no accountability for resource input v. output? No program operates like that.

[307bball]

So there should be no accountability for resource input v. output? No program operates like that.

I agree....but answer the fundamental question...at what level of compensation are you, Wyovanian, ok with having an awful athletic program? Maybe you would be fine with the results that we are seeing if the coach gets paid, for instance, half of what they make now? What if they were volunteering? I think you could make a completely compelling case that we could have had the same results over the last 8 years that we have had, at a much lower price and I, for one, would still find myself un-comforted by whatever got spent on those results...no matter how small. The inverse of this is the question about how bad you would feel about a high salary coupled with great results? I'd feel pretty damn good if Bohl had won 10 games this season and I think you would too....and nobody would be grousing about coach compensation.

I actually agree w/BullBugle when he wrote:

That kinda stuff does matter to me. We've poured money into facilities and coaching while our state finances have been suffering. About 5 or 6 years ago or so when I started on this board, I was questioning all that and whether the juice was worth the squeeze so to speak. I pointed out that we could pour all the money we wanted into coaching and facilities and we'd still have a hard time getting talent because we're Wyoming. Most of you said I was an idiot. Many of you thought we could buy our way to a MW Championship and a NY6 bowl, which seems laughable now. Now, even then I didn't think College football would change the way it has and the way its going, but it appears the powers that be are intent on relegating teams like ours to a farm league, thus making that magical season that much further from being possible. The worst part is, Bohl played the entire state. We gave him everything he asked for and he failed to deliver on his promises. Now we look like fools.

I don't remember the comments that BullBugle is referring to that got him called an idiot but I I'm one of the people that has always seen UW as a very difficult place to find athletic success at regardless of how much you spend to get that success. I don't really agree that Bohl is acting in bad faith at all, as intimated by the comment "Bohl Played the entire state". That disagreement aside...everything else he points out here is spot on. I think the only way out of this is a string of absolute home run hires that vaults us into the national conversation with our on-field results. I don't believe Bohl is the first guy of that string...but If it actually does happen i'm pretty sure the guy that gets us going will not be somebody that we can point a finger to today.

Now everybody can get their knives out and accuse me of having a loser mentality or not being a "real" cowboy's fan...but I would like nothing more than to celebrate some great Cowboys teams with my kids like I got to do when I was young....And it looks to my like that ain't going to happen.

[bullbugle307]

Yeah, I suppose he's not acting in bad faith. He probably thought he was going to deliver. But damn, he made some bold promises, we ponied up financially, and he's failed to deliver. I'm pretty salty about it, and I think all Wyoming fans and taxpayers should be as well.

[307bball]

Yeah, I suppose he's not acting in bad faith. He probably thought he was going to deliver. But damn, he made some bold promises, we ponied up financially, and he's failed to deliver. I'm pretty salty about it, and I think all Wyoming fans and taxpayers should be as well.

It is interesting to think of it in terms of Wyoming taxpayers... How many of them are Wyoming athletics supporters? Probably not even a third? I'm not saying they are rooting against Wyoming... Just that, in general, the average Wyomingite is much less tuned into the program than the denizens of this message board.... Or, more likely, are just not into sports. Those people probably look at head football coach compensation and scratch thier heads. To those of us that follow it and consume it all year long (not just on game day), we understand that the cost to just sit at the table has increased a ton in the last 25 or so years... And it looks like it's not slowing down. Even if we paid our head coach the middle of the conference rate, it's still a ton of money... And if you ask me the results we have gotten are not even worth that much. The only time the money seems worth it is when you are in the upper echelon... Otherwise it's too expensive at any realistic price.

[LanderPoke]

Yeah, I suppose he's not acting in bad faith. He probably thought he was going to deliver. But damn, he made some bold promises, we ponied up financially, and he's failed to deliver. I'm pretty salty about it, and I think all Wyoming fans and taxpayers should be as well.

It is interesting to think of it in terms of Wyoming taxpayers... How many of them are Wyoming athletics supporters? Probably not even a third? I'm not saying they are rooting against Wyoming... Just that, in general, the average Wyomingite is much less tuned into the program than the denizens of this message board.... Or, more likely, are just not into sports. Those people probably look at head football coach compensation and scratch thier heads. To those of us that follow it and consume it all year long (not just on game day), we understand that the cost to just sit at the table has increased a ton in the last 25 or so years... And it looks like it's not slowing down. Even if we paid our head coach the middle of the conference rate, it's still a ton of money... And if you ask me the results we have gotten are not even worth that much. The only time the money seems worth it is when you are in the upper echelon... Otherwise it's too expensive at any realistic price.

good grief. Do you root for Wyoming to lose each game?

[307bball]

Yeah, I suppose he's not acting in bad faith. He probably thought he was going to deliver. But damn, he made some bold promises, we ponied up financially, and he's failed to deliver. I'm pretty salty about it, and I think all Wyoming fans and taxpayers should be as well.

It is interesting to think of it in terms of Wyoming taxpayers... How many of them are Wyoming athletics supporters? Probably not even a third? I'm not saying they are rooting against Wyoming... Just that, in general, the average Wyomingite is much less tuned into the program than the denizens of this message board.... Or, more likely, are just not into sports. Those people probably look at head football coach compensation and scratch thier heads. To those of us that follow it and consume it all year long (not just on game day), we understand that the cost to just sit at the table has increased a ton in the last 25 or so years... And it looks like it's not slowing down. Even if we paid our head coach the middle of the conference rate, it's still a ton of money... And if you ask me the results we have gotten are not even worth that much. The only time the money seems worth it is when you are in the upper echelon... Otherwise it's too expensive at any realistic price.

good grief. Do you root for Wyoming to lose each game?

Lander..good to hear from you! I'm sorry that I've left the wrong impression w/you. Am I not saying this in an understandable way? I admit .... this is a slightly challenging topic, but I don't see how my comments would be construed as rooting against Wyoming. If you are confused about something specifice...by all means...ask away.

[bullbugle307]

There's nothing confusing about what you or I said. If you don't drink the Kool Aid in this state, your the bad guy. That applies to a lot more than football too.

[LanderPoke]

Yeah, I suppose he's not acting in bad faith. He probably thought he was going to deliver. But damn, he made some bold promises, we ponied up financially, and he's failed to deliver. I'm pretty salty about it, and I think all Wyoming fans and taxpayers should be as well.

It is interesting to think of it in terms of Wyoming taxpayers... How many of them are Wyoming athletics supporters? Probably not even a third? I'm not saying they are rooting against Wyoming... Just that, in general, the average Wyomingite is much less tuned into the program than the denizens of this message board.... Or, more likely, are just not into sports. Those people probably look at head football coach compensation and scratch thier heads. To those of us that follow it and consume it all year long (not just on game day), we understand that the cost to just sit at the table has increased a ton in the last 25 or so years... And it looks like it's not slowing down. Even if we paid our head coach the middle of the conference rate, it's still a ton of money... And if you ask me the results we have gotten are not even worth that much. The only time the money seems worth it is when you are in the upper echelon... Otherwise it's too expensive at any realistic price.

good grief. Do you root for Wyoming to lose each game?

Lander..good to hear from you! I'm sorry that I've left the wrong impression w/you. Am I not saying this in an understandable way? I admit .... this is a slightly challenging topic, but I don't see how my comments would be construed as rooting against Wyoming. If you are confused about something specifice...by all means...ask away.

So much negativity. We ALREADY have been left behind. It's already happened. REally no need to beat the dead horse to death. We are where we belong - in the mountain west with peer institutions. We have great support from both the state are our fans. We all give a lot. IMO it's worth it - even when it's not "working out". College sports are really fun, especially football. I don't agree with you that we are as good as we can get. Coaching matters!. Let's get a real coach. Are you paying attention to basketball. We got a competent coach and he is building a great program. Same can happen with football. Laramie/Wyoming has its limitations, but they can all be overcome with a good coach. Burman and Bohl both need to ride into the sunset.

[bullbugle307]

There's a huge difference between being able to recruit for BB and football. It's a numbers game.

[307bball]

So much negativity. We ALREADY have been left behind. It's already happened. REally no need to beat the dead horse to death.

Yes...we have been left behind...that was not totally what I was addressing above but, I do agree with the sentiment.

We are where we belong - in the mountain west with peer institutions. We have great support from both the state are our fans.

More agreement...I quibble with characterizing our support as "great"...maybe in the context of a very lightly populated western state it is "great" but definitely not in the larger context of college football. Obviously, monetary support of the program is the most visible metric but overall support is tougher to nail down. I would rank BSU, SDSU, AFA, and Fresno as having more support. In the MW..I would say we have "adequate" support.

We all give a lot. IMO it's worth it - even when it's not "working out". College sports are really fun, especially football.

This one is both very subjective...and depending on how you analyze it, completely objective. Subjectively, I agree with you. Ojectively it gets a little more dicey. The part about it being "really fun" now has to be left out. It has been pointed out, ad nauseam, how terrible the ROI is on college football on average. Programs like Wyoming fall well below the line on average. The whole Josh Allen experience at Wyoming and his notoriety has basically justified whatever we spent during the time he was here if you measure what that kind of exposure costs. I happen to agree that college athletics are "really fun" so I would say to spend the money but I understand that I may not be representative of the average Wyoming taxpayer or legislator.

I don't agree with you that we are as good as we can get. Coaching matters!. Let's get a real coach. Are you paying attention to basketball. We got a competent coach and he is building a great program. Same can happen with football. Laramie/Wyoming has its limitations, but they can all be overcome with a good coach. Burman and Bohl both need to ride into the sunset.

Now we are into territory where we either disagree or I'm being mis-represented. I don't think I ever claimed we are as good as we can get, and if I did, it was in reference to people saying we were the "right coach" away from being championship caliber. I've claimed the the problem of having the wrong coach is not what is holding this program back...but that is not the same thing and saying we will never be any good. We may indeed have the wrong coach, but I don't think that is the main reason for our quarter century of sucking. Put Nick Saban at the helm for the last 20 years and I do not see us being worlds better. The main limitation I see is the ability to attract top flight players to Laramie. Every top flight player we have ever gotten has not been considered elite until they developed after high school. People have pointed to the uptick in talent during Bohl's tenure as evidence that we can get talent at Wyoming but, as I've pointed out, it is not a significant enough increase to have an out-sized impact. Also, I don't think you can hold up basketball success as evidence that it's possible in football. There is a supply of talent in basketball that is actually growing while the demand of college basketball programs is pretty static. In football, high school participation is actually dropping so you don't have the base of players that lesser programs have traditionally drawn on. Not to mention that Linder is "building" a great program....it is not "built".

I agree that we have pretty much seen the top of what Bohl can achieve here...I just can't see a way that we ever have a stretch like we did from '87 to '96 where we averaged 7.5 wins a year....just because I can't see it and I've not seen a coherent plan on this message board or anywhere else that could get us there does not mean I think it can't be done.

Anyways....I'm sorry to bum you out with my doom and gloom. I love Wyoming sports and am not going anywhere. I definitely do not root against them or whatever.

[ragtimejoe1]

Wyovania's point about expenditures is good especially relative to conference peers. We've increased facilities and money spent while also improving our standing/spending by subtraction of big budget teams. All this mostly without improving our success.

A clear sign the Athletic Department might need some work.

[Wyovanian]

Wyovania's point about expenditures is good especially relative to conference peers. We've increased facilities and money spent while also improving our standing/spending by subtraction of big budget teams. All this mostly without improving our success.

A clear sign the Athletic Department might need some work.

Bingo.

[307bball]

Wyovania's point about expenditures is good especially relative to conference peers. We've increased facilities and money spent while also improving our standing/spending by subtraction of big budget teams. All this mostly without improving our success.

A clear sign the Athletic Department might need some work.

Bingo.

I get that analysis...and I'm not saying it's wrong...but how convinced are all of us that the relationship between success and spending is linear? Other possible explanations of why the increased spending has not resulted in success:

• It could be a tiered relationship, wherein extra spending makes no difference in success until you cross some threshold.

• Maybe it is geometric or logarithmic and in order to actually realize an observable change in outcomes, our spending would have to increase beyond our capabilities.

• Maybe we had such a deficit that we are only just now getting to "even" so to speak.

• Maybe the landscape within which Wyoming has increased investment in the Football program has occurred within a similar general increase in investment in other college football programs.

• Possibly, the increase in absolute spending, while large, is only a small increase in relative spending of other programs.

I think the last two are kind of the same but I think you get my drift. Now...the athletic department may in fact be incompetent, but I can't also rule out the above factors.

My suspicion is that it is some unholy combination of all of these factors and our mono-variable analysis is not sufficient to get at any single root cause.