I apologize for being pedantic...but saying Bohl "kept" us out of the cellar implies that we were not in it when he took over...I would definitely call the team that had won the second least conference games (one more victory than UNLV) over the previous three coaches tenure, a cellar-dweller.ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:06 pmLooks like we pretty much agree. Bohl kept us out of the cellar like csu and unm. Bohl largely couldn't beat upper mediocre to good teams; he could beat bad teams.307bball wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 11:07 am
*sigh*...do you just not see the text that I write when I observe that the conference strength has slipped? I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Do I need to write that twice? here goes...maybe it will sink in. I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Heck ... for three out of the six teams i'm looking at...they did have a modest uptick in conf wins/year. Perfectly explainable by playing worse competition.
Now..I'm going to write something else that may cause you to forget what I wrote above. If that happens, start over. I don't accept that the conference got so bad that it caused Wyoming to nearly doubled it's conference wins/year. You cannot ignore that Wyoming and Wyoming alone, out of the 6 teams that remained in the MWC for that entire stretch, had that kind of increase. If it was due, in the main, to the conference getting weaker (Which happened...nobody is disputing that), the other 5 teams would have a similar movement in the category of conference wins/year. But you don't see that....because it still matters who is at the helm. If you screw it up you'll end up like CSU and UNM .... unable to "feast" on the diminished remains of the conference. Or maybe we just maintain whatever we had going from 2000-2014 (which was very little) and enjoy a modest uptick. That would have been predictable at least. Nope...Burman hired Bohl and we saw a large turnaround relative to our long time conference mates that is not entirely explained by just conference strength.
I would love for Bohl to have gotten even more progress. That last bump up to an average of 5 or so wins/year surely would have come with a title or at least more championship game appearances. Is the next guy going to get us there? I think most are taking a wait and see approach...I'm pessimistic, but I hope I'm wrong.
Anyways, if all that matters is that Wyoming play more teams in the top 50 or so of CFB...I think Wyoming football may not be for you. That train has left the station years ago.
Luckily we faced a lot of bad teams.
Just not that controversial.
What Bohl took over was a mess...it was a program that was going nowhere fast. If all he did was to maintain what was going on before with his own spin on it......you do not see the relative rise in success that Wyoming had. Did he do all he could have done?...meh...maybe...temperamentally he could not let go of a high level of control of the offense and that ultimately limited him. I know he wanted to play complimentary football but that conservatism may have kept him from making progress beyond what he did. It's a topic all of us have opinions on but it's a classic hypothetical.