Thorburn Interview With Burman: details on hiring Sawvell, his contract, vision for the future.

307bball said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

I get it. You guys are satisfied with 4th-5th in the mwc and think that is a reasonable ceiling. I don't. We can agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

This is the stuff that is not true on it's face...it makes the legitimate things you say lose validity when it is posted next to this. And you do say legitimate things that I have agreed with ... and when I don't they are still thought provoking. But, this is a bad-faith caricature of actual nuanced opinions that seems aimed at those who see things differently than you. Why make this claim of us when we have repeatedly clarified that it's untrue

Click to expand...

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding but it seems that the general consensus is that continuing Bohl's stability is acceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

There really isn't anything the ad or coach can do other than what is currently being done. We need to be satisfied with bowl appearances, attendance, etc. and hope the current system and people break through at some point.

If I'm off, I'm not sure where?

ragtimejoe1 said:

307bball said:

This is the stuff that is not true on it's face...it makes the legitimate things you say lose validity when it is posted next to this. And you do say legitimate things that I have agreed with ... and when I don't they are still thought provoking. But, this is a bad-faith caricature of actual nuanced opinions that seems aimed at those who see things differently than you. Why make this claim of us when we have repeatedly clarified that it's untrue

Click to expand...

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding but it seems that the general consensus is that continuing Bohl's stability is acceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

There really isn't anything the ad or coach can do other than what is currently being done. We need to be satisfied with bowl appearances, attendance, etc. and hope the current system and people break through at some point.

If I'm off, I'm not sure where?

Click to expand...

No we should fire the whole staff and lose half our team and win 1 game next year.

ragtimejoe1 said:

307bball said:

This is the stuff that is not true on it's face...it makes the legitimate things you say lose validity when it is posted next to this. And you do say legitimate things that I have agreed with ... and when I don't they are still thought provoking. But, this is a bad-faith caricature of actual nuanced opinions that seems aimed at those who see things differently than you. Why make this claim of us when we have repeatedly clarified that it's untrue

Click to expand...

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding but it seems that the general consensus is that continuing Bohl's stability is acceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

There really isn't anything the ad or coach can do other than what is currently being done. We need to be satisfied with bowl appearances, attendance, etc. and hope the current system and people break through at some point.

If I'm off, I'm not sure where?

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Here is how I would put it:

Not continuing Bohl's stability is unacceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

CB has shown us that despite the challenges facing UW football...There is no excuse for malingering at the bottom of the conference year in and year out.

What is currently being done by the AD and coach is constrained very broadly and it is not trivial that Wyoming has gotten the attendance, bowl appearances, and donor base that it has. Moves should be made that build upon Bohl's successes. The next steps are to join or displace BSU, Fresno, and SDSU in the upper echelon of the conference. Moving from 4 to 5 conference wins per year to 6, 7 and 8 conference wins per year over 3+ years is the goal. Achieving that goal would be an impressive feat. It feels like Bohl has been sooooo close.

My personal opinion is that we don't make that next step as a developmental program. I think we are at or near the top of what we can achieve with that strategy. To make that next step Wyoming must recruit HS and transfer players on the level that BSU does. They must do that while not letting the developmental aspect of the program slip. Can Sawvell crack that code? If Bohl couldn't and Sawvell can't .... who can? is the HC what is limiting us there? These are the questions that you and I probably answer differently. I do not think that the HC or AD is the only thing holding us back in that department. I think we make a mistake when we say "but if our offense was just average we would have multiple championships"....Teams are a reflection of what they focus on and for programs with limited resources like Wyoming, you can't focus on everything. Maybe there is a savant out there that is an organizational genius who makes the right call of what to emphasize every time and we become a powerhouse....unfortunately, in that event, before powerhouse status is achieved, I predict that person is hired away. Anyways....

laxwyo said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding but it seems that the general consensus is that continuing Bohl's stability is acceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

There really isn't anything the ad or coach can do other than what is currently being done. We need to be satisfied with bowl appearances, attendance, etc. and hope the current system and people break through at some point.

If I'm off, I'm not sure where?

Click to expand...

No we should fire the whole staff and lose half our team and win 1 game next year.

Click to expand...

And you guys accuse me off strawman.

Just because Burman says we'll lose most of our team doesn't make it true. We lost big chunks previously with Bohl. Now that Bohl announced and we haven't lost that many, does that mean Bohl was running them off? Of course not. Just like Burman's claim is ridiculous. This team isn't good enough to have a huge amount of attrition unless they just decide to pack it in and quit football...unlikley.

307bball said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding but it seems that the general consensus is that continuing Bohl's stability is acceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

There really isn't anything the ad or coach can do other than what is currently being done. We need to be satisfied with bowl appearances, attendance, etc. and hope the current system and people break through at some point.

If I'm off, I'm not sure where?

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Here is how I would put it:

Not continuing Bohl's stability is unacceptable under all the various internal and external factors.

CB has shown us that despite the challenges facing UW football...There is no excuse for malingering at the bottom of the conference year in and year out.

What is currently being done by the AD and coach is constrained very broadly and it is not trivial that Wyoming has gotten the attendance, bowl appearances, and donor base that it has. Moves should be made that build upon Bohl's successes. The next steps are to join or displace BSU, Fresno, and SDSU in the upper echelon of the conference. Moving from 4 to 5 conference wins per year to 6, 7 and 8 conference wins per year over 3+ years is the goal. Achieving that goal would be an impressive feat. It feels like Bohl has been sooooo close.

My personal opinion is that we don't make that next step as a developmental program. I think we are at or near the top of what we can achieve with that strategy. To make that next step Wyoming must recruit HS and transfer players on the level that BSU does. They must do that while not letting the developmental aspect of the program slip. Can Sawvell crack that code? If Bohl couldn't and Sawvell can't .... who can? is the HC what is limiting us there? These are the questions that you and I probably answer differently. I do not think that the HC or AD is the only thing holding us back in that department. I think we make a mistake when we say "but if our offense was just average we would have multiple championships"....Teams are a reflection of what they focus on and for programs with limited resources like Wyoming, you can't focus on everything. Maybe there is a savant out there that is an organizational genius who makes the right call of what to emphasize every time and we become a powerhouse....unfortunately, in that event, before powerhouse status is achieved, I predict that person is hired away. Anyways....

Click to expand...

We fundamentally disagree. Part of it is, I think, that I doubt internal hires are truly an extension of Bohl. Closest? Yes. Close enough to be business as usual? I predict no.

I believe Burman is grasping to maintain relative mediocre but not basement program and I don't believe it will work. In other words I don't think this improves our chances at 7 wins more so than a big splash external hire.

We'll know next year and these are just differences in opinion.

ragtimejoe1 said:

We fundamentally disagree. Part of it is, I think, that I doubt internal hires are truly an extension of Bohl. Closest? Yes. Close enough to be business as usual? I predict no.

I believe Burman is grasping to maintain relative mediocre but not basement program and I don't believe it will work. In other words I don't think this improves our chances at 7 wins more so than a big splash external hire.

We'll know next year and these are just differences in opinion.

Click to expand...

You are still making the mistake that I am pro-Sawvell hire...I am not. I'm not terribly ant-Sawvell either. From an outsider perspective I think it has as good of a chance as success as other realistic options. I don't think an "extension" of CB is what we need...to the extent that Bohl brought stability and a commitment to development of overlooked HS players...that needs to be brought into the future. The stubbornness and offensive inability?..that should not be extended.

Burman absolutely is trying to maintain something with this hire. That something happens to be a sustained high point in Wyoming football since Tiller was roaming the sidelines in Laramie. He is also absolutely trying not to make moves that would make sliding back into the basement more likely....that is not a bad thing.

I also believe that this doesn't look like a slam dunk move that gets us where we want to go. I don't think opening up the pocketbook to the tune of 2+ million per year on a more high profile hire is a slam dunk either though. If you think Burman is only looking at the bottom line...and one option costs half as much as the other, you better be damn sure it pans out. If the future looks remotely uncertain...Sawvell seems like the obvious choice. It may work out....just going off of what I have observed over 40+ years of watching college football...my money is that it won't but, you never know.

So, to kind’ve move things along to a discussion about moving forward…I wanted to share a thought I had about the last two games and the time leading up to it. Right around that point in the season I was really wondering if Bohl was done. Lots of people were I think. After the second to last game, we had to have all thought, where the heck has that been all this time. When was the last time we dominated a team we should? I wondered if Bohl was finally realizing he needed to get out of the way of the offense.

Next week, same thing. I started to think, hope really that Bohl had had some lightbulb moment. I honestly didn’t think he would retire after winning those last two games, so I was a bit surprised when I heard the news at that point. I wouldn’t have been surprised at all I think if he had lost one of them, and I think I would have expected/demanded if it he had lost the last two games. So that was my thinking.

So here’s my hope, since we’ve committed, I think, to a plan of maintaining Bohls success while also building on it obviously. If by some chance I’m right, and we had the players and coordinators in place already to trounce bad teams in a way we consistently haven’t in the past, perhaps that means that we had the players and coordinators in place already to be more competitive against the upper echelon teams that we were just that close with so many times. Perhaps a change in offensive management at the CEO level happened those last two weeks, and Bohl realized that he has been holding himself, and the team back for years with his philosophy. I know it sounds crazy, and it probably is, but I think he was trying to change his offensive philosophy and just couldn’t. We saw attempts at more hurry up throughout the season, lots of resulting false start penalties when we tried it, but I do think maybe Polasek was trying to break through the god awful systemic problems that plagued our offense consistently for years, and I think maybe he did in those last couple games. I just find it hard to believe that something didn’t change on offense to have us go out and truly whoop two bad teams in a way we never really have like that. I have to wonder if maybe Burman could see this, and if it influenced his hiring process.

So, if some semblance of that scenario is true, then what do we need to get to the next level. By that I mean be able to beat teams likes Boise, Fresno, formerly SDSU, possibly SJSU and UNLV going forward.

We need to maintain the caliber of players we’ve gotten in the past. This may not be easy, but it’ll surely depend on continuing to recruit at the level we have, develop younger players, and balance that with NIL. Good luck. I don’t mean to understate the challenge there.

Next, offense. Is Polasek our OC next year? How does Sawvel manage the offense compared to Bohl. I’ve gotta think a DC under Bohl will understand full well that a ball control offense is great when it actually works, but that it stresses the heck out of the defense if you can’t move the ball. I would think and hope a DC under Bohl would have been well positioned to understand how to incorporate that philosophy in a more effective way, even if that just means completely letting your current OC manage the offense.

I think Sawvels biggest challenge will be hiring and managing his replacement. But I think he’s as well positioned as anybody to do that.

So, if by some chance we’re looking back this time next year and we’ve been more successful, I think it will be a result of a Polasek run offense that maintains elements of a strong running game, but does much better in the passing game. An offense that can utilize tempo and throw the ball around when it needs to, but is happy to grind it out, because it really does work WHEN you can do it.

And it will depend on maintaining something close to the success we’ve had on defense. I think we can do this on defense, but it’s the offensive part I’m still worried about. We have to be able to get guys open and deliver the ball. If Grant stays and can’t do that next year he’s got to go.

Well, I'm sure we all bookmarked this and kept receipts. I hope it's me that's wrong.

We'll see what happens.

To be clear, I don’t expect us to get better. I expect similar to worse results honestly next year. I’m saying if by some chance we are more successful, and given the things that have transpired up until this point, I think success will look like what I outlined. If I’m Sawvel this is my roadmap to success. Don’t know if he can do it, kindve doubt it honestly, but I hope he can and I think this is what it looks like if he does. As you said, well see.

bullbugle307 said:

To be clear, I don’t expect us to get better. I expect similar to worse results honestly next year. I’m saying if by some chance we are more successful, and given the things that have transpired up until this point, I think success will look like what I outlined. If I’m Sawvel this is my roadmap to success. Don’t know if he can do it, kindve doubt it honestly, but I hope he can and I think this is what it looks like if he does. As you said, well see.

Click to expand...

Sorry. man. My post was more directed at the war party above.

Regarding next steps now that he in place? I don't disagree

ragtimejoe1 said:

Well, I'm sure we all bookmarked this and kept receipts. I hope it's me that's wrong.

We'll see what happens.

Click to expand...

If you are wrong.... That will be the same for most of us. I don't see many predictions that it's getting better anytime soon. Anybody think this hire is the beginning of better days? Anybody? I thought so.

307bball said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

Well, I'm sure we all bookmarked this and kept receipts. I hope it's me that's wrong.

We'll see what happens.

Click to expand...

If you are wrong.... That will be the same for most of us. I don't see many predictions that it's getting better anytime soon. Anybody think this hire is the beginning of better days? Anybody? I thought so.

Click to expand...

Haha, we'll see but I bet you are wrong if November comes and we are near a conference championship. I'll bet I'm roasted. Of course, if we tank, I'm sure you're right.

@ragtimejoe1

You keep saying a version of "agree to disagree" or "If I'm right and you are wrong" (or the inverse)....then, when pressed to clarify the agreement or disagreement .... your replies do not map onto the previous posts. It's appears like some version of performative edgelording.

At this point ... I think, to a man, we have been expressing some version of cautious pessimism about the future of Cowboy football. There are shades of difference when it comes to what each of us think the root cause of that is and how it might be addressed. There are no "receipts" to keep on that front. If, two years from now, Wyoming is a conference champ....nobody posting right now will be able to "claim a victory"....and if in two years Burman is firing Sawvell....well, most of us will have sadly been more correct than not in our prediction. If somebody brings this thread up after a conference championship next year in an attempt to "roast" you....that would be some level of incoherence that even you have not displayed.

I'll risk getting misunderstood yet a gain. As I view this...I get tired of the "we just need accountability" or "it's all in the Sternberg report" stuff...it's not that it's not true, after all, accountability is necessary and I'm not disputing anything that was in the Sternberg report. It's just that those things can be true and also not centrally at the core of what is hampering Wyoming athletics. I've used the shorthand description of "hire 'em and fire 'em" as sort of an extreme expression of demanding accountability. AD not working out? Fire the guy and get somebody else in...Coach, UW president, BOT (not sure how that would work)...give them all the boot and keep shuffling the deck until we get the hand that succeeds. I'm being a little glib with that description but I'm not really against it...I just don't think our odds of success go up if we take that approach. Furthermore, this is all happening against the backdrop of incredible instability in college athletics. There is a distinct possibility that in 10 years Wyoming will have three conference championships to it's name in football but it will be at a conference or division that is unrecognizable today. What does that mean? Do we celebrate that? If Burman is still at the helm, would he be responsible for the championships or for falling into a lower division?

Anyways...From this poke fan's point of view...I don't see a lot of hope on the horizon. We just experienced the longest stable stretch in Wyoming football in the last 25 years and with increased fan attendance, budget, etc...were still unable to win a championship or even be considered in the MWC upper echelon of teams. It's bowl season and after the Arizona bowl I'll be focusing on a pretty average Wyoming basketball team so I guess I've got that to look forward to.

ragtimejoe1 said:

Well, I'm sure we all bookmarked this and kept receipts. I hope it's me that's wrong.

We'll see what happens.

Click to expand...

This is silly beyond belief. It starts with the wrong
premise that a head coach can magically make the Wyoming football program elite. We don’t have the market nor inclined donor pool to compete at elite levels in the new college free agency market.

I am hopeful but doubtful Sawvel will be taking the program to 10 win seasons. But I’m also doubtful that Nick Saban could either.

So bookmark all you want but you will neither be proven right or wrong under any scenario.

You guys are complicating this too much. Let's simplify. If the logic is that we don't want to blow up the program and take a step back by hiring externally then logic dictates that next year should be a relative continuation of this year.

If the wheels fall off, then the logic of an internal hire has been shown to be ineffective. That's pretty cut and dry, imo, and Burman bears responsibility for that decision.

For the life of me I can't figure out why that is so controversial with you guys.

ragtimejoe1 said:

You guys are complicating this too much. Let's simplify. If the logic is that we don't want to blow up the program and take a step back by hiring externally then logic dictates that next year should be a relative continuation of this year.

If the wheels fall off, then the logic of an internal hire has been shown to be ineffective. That's pretty cut and dry, imo, and Burman bears responsibility for that decision.

For the life of me I can't figure out why that is so controversial with you guys.

Click to expand...

Burman is a milquetoast AD no matter what the football program does the next few years.

The reason you are getting pushback is that I (and a few others) are not agreeing to your construct. It's too binary....too black and white. I don't agree that hiring externally = blowing up the program. I don't agree that Sawvell failing = Internal hires are ineffective. I also don't know what you mean by a "relative continuation" of this year....We just finished a lot of years with the same guy at the helm....I think next year will be pretty different, but I could be wrong. Maybe Sawvell will just try to do exactly what he thinks Bohl would have done.

From Burman's interview it seems like his thought process put value on consistency....this makes complete sense because Bohl has actually build something of value. There are coaches external to the program that would have been consistent with Bohl's philosophy....you don't have to hire internally to get that. Now...from there, Burman also talked about progressing as a program. From this point you can go down many pathways but they are all probably versions of destructive or constructive progress. If there is widespread disfunction on the team .... the obvious correct pathway is to tear as much of it down as you can and try to rebuild from the ashes. In reality...it is a mix of both. If there are worthwhile structures in place, it is time to identify and strengthen those while also abandoning less functional structures.

As I've said and will say again. I would have liked to see the AD do something radical...but I'm not confident it would have worked...or even that it would have a higher likelihood of working. But it would have been entertaining!

307bball said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

You guys are complicating this too much. Let's simplify. If the logic is that we don't want to blow up the program and take a step back by hiring externally then logic dictates that next year should be a relative continuation of this year.

If the wheels fall off, then the logic of an internal hire has been shown to be ineffective. That's pretty cut and dry, imo, and Burman bears responsibility for that decision.

For the life of me I can't figure out why that is so controversial with you guys.

Click to expand...

Burman is a milquetoast AD no matter what the football program does the next few years.

The reason you are getting pushback is that I (and a few others) are not agreeing to your construct. It's too binary....too black and white. I don't agree that hiring externally = blowing up the program. I don't agree that Sawvell failing = Internal hires are ineffective. I also don't know what you mean by a "relative continuation" of this year....We just finished a lot of years with the same guy at the helm....I think next year will be pretty different, but I could be wrong. Maybe Sawvell will just try to do exactly what he thinks Bohl would have done.

From Burman's interview it seems like his thought process put value on consistency....this makes complete sense because Bohl has actually build something of value. There are coaches external to the program that would have been consistent with Bohl's philosophy....you don't have to hire internally to get that. Now...from there, Burman also talked about progressing as a program. From this point you can go down many pathways but they are all probably versions of destructive or constructive progress. If there is widespread disfunction on the team .... the obvious correct pathway is to tear as much of it down as you can and try to rebuild from the ashes. In reality...it is a mix of both. If there are worthwhile structures in place, it is time to identify and strengthen those while also abandoning less functional structures.

As I've said and will say again. I would have liked to see the AD do something radical...but I'm not confident it would have worked...or even that it would have a higher likelihood of working. But it would have been entertaining!

Click to expand...

Pretty simple disagreement in opinion. Burman's decision will have an outcome. If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision.

The outcome is more important to me rather than justification of the decision process. You appear to put weight on Burman's stated reasons for his decision. I don't. It reeks of fabricated justifications after the decision was made.

Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I really don't care if you do or not. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

You and the others can view it however you want and I have my views. However, at the end of the day; most of the world will judge the decision will be based on win/losses.

ragtimejoe1 said:

307bball said:

Burman is a milquetoast AD no matter what the football program does the next few years.

The reason you are getting pushback is that I (and a few others) are not agreeing to your construct. It's too binary....too black and white. I don't agree that hiring externally = blowing up the program. I don't agree that Sawvell failing = Internal hires are ineffective. I also don't know what you mean by a "relative continuation" of this year....We just finished a lot of years with the same guy at the helm....I think next year will be pretty different, but I could be wrong. Maybe Sawvell will just try to do exactly what he thinks Bohl would have done.

From Burman's interview it seems like his thought process put value on consistency....this makes complete sense because Bohl has actually build something of value. There are coaches external to the program that would have been consistent with Bohl's philosophy....you don't have to hire internally to get that. Now...from there, Burman also talked about progressing as a program. From this point you can go down many pathways but they are all probably versions of destructive or constructive progress. If there is widespread disfunction on the team .... the obvious correct pathway is to tear as much of it down as you can and try to rebuild from the ashes. In reality...it is a mix of both. If there are worthwhile structures in place, it is time to identify and strengthen those while also abandoning less functional structures.

As I've said and will say again. I would have liked to see the AD do something radical...but I'm not confident it would have worked...or even that it would have a higher likelihood of working. But it would have been entertaining!

Click to expand...

Pretty simple disagreement in opinion. Burman's decision will have an outcome. If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision.

The outcome is more important to me rather than justification of the decision process. You appear to put weight on Burman's stated reasons for his decision. I don't. It reeks of fabricated justifications after the decision was made.

Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I really don't care if you do or not. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

You and the others can view it however you want and I have my views. However, at the end of the day; most of the world will judge the decision will be based on win/losses.

Click to expand...

Point of clarification...you said "If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision."...would you also say "if the did great with his decision, the outcome will be good. If the decision was a bad one, the wheels will fall off"?

I guess...it seems to me that you are making Burman the sole cause of success or failure....or at least are making his actions the main reasons for the results. Are you so sure that the wheels can't come off no matter what Burman does?

307bball said:

ragtimejoe1 said:

Pretty simple disagreement in opinion. Burman's decision will have an outcome. If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision.

The outcome is more important to me rather than justification of the decision process. You appear to put weight on Burman's stated reasons for his decision. I don't. It reeks of fabricated justifications after the decision was made.

Again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. I really don't care if you do or not. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

You and the others can view it however you want and I have my views. However, at the end of the day; most of the world will judge the decision will be based on win/losses.

Click to expand...

Point of clarification...you said "If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision."...would you also say "if the did great with his decision, the outcome will be good. If the decision was a bad one, the wheels will fall off"?

I guess...it seems to me that you are making Burman the sole cause of success or failure....or at least are making his actions the main reasons for the results. Are you so sure that the wheels can't come off no matter what Burman does?

Click to expand...

If he did great, we'll win a NC and he'll be immortal, lol.

For the last part, yes imo. Bohl did his job which means that level of success is attainable within our system. It's Burman's job to now make the right decisions and build upon that even if somewhat incremental. The wheels would be unlikely to fall off in the next few years if Bohl were here which means they shouldn't fall off with Burman's next decisions.

ragtimejoe1 said:

307bball said:

Point of clarification...you said "If the outcome is good, he did great. If the wheels fall off, he made a bad decision."...would you also say "if the did great with his decision, the outcome will be good. If the decision was a bad one, the wheels will fall off"?

I guess...it seems to me that you are making Burman the sole cause of success or failure....or at least are making his actions the main reasons for the results. Are you so sure that the wheels can't come off no matter what Burman does?

Click to expand...

If he did great, we'll win a NC and he'll be immortal, lol.

For the last part, yes imo. Bohl did his job which means that level of success is attainable within our system. It's Burman's job to now make the right decisions and build upon that even if somewhat incremental. The wheels would be unlikely to fall off in the next few years if Bohl were here which means they shouldn't fall off with Burman's next decisions.

Click to expand...

Ok....getting some clarity now....I think I agree on a bad AD decision having a very negative effect almost every time. I think where I get off the bus is, I do not think it works the other way. Maybe if you are the Notre Dame AD skies the limit, but AD's at average G5 programs are constrained in soooo many ways that it's unrealistic to point to the lack of success and lay that wholly at the feet of the AD. Disasters? sure...lack of success is a little more murky. Does that make sense?