WyoNation.com

Who are the p[ers that be that are satisfied? They have names and positions. Start reassignment until excellence is demanded.

I think that is what Sternberg was about to do which is why they ran him out of town.

Tie state money to athletic success metrics wound also help.

Bohl a legend. Haaaa hardly...maybe at NDSU but not at UW...he was old enough to know this was his last and only stop at the D1 level as head coach

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 6:03 pm Who are the p[ers that be that are satisfied? They have names and positions. Start reassignment until excellence is demanded.

I think that is what Sternberg was about to do which is why they ran him out of town.

Tie state money to athletic success metrics wound also help.

Satisfied with what? That is the question. If it's satisfied with not being a conference champ....I didn't think anybody is.

What about satisfied with the exposure, graduation rate, attendance, donations...I think it may be a different answer. Even then I didn't think folks are just sitting around content.

stymeman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 8:16 pm Bohl a legend. Haaaa hardly...maybe at NDSU but not at UW...he was old enough to know this was his last and only stop at the D1 level as head coach

I just wonder.

307bball wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:54 pm
I think it's a real possibility that the people in charge do not view this like you and I....for them it is working as intended and our concerns over no championships don't matter to them. Even our disagreement on "why" there are no championships is immaterial if that is the case.

Does CSU have these same structures that keep them down? In my opinion, no. They have the investment, the market, the urban area for recruits, etc. etc. but it is PEOPLE in charge that have mismanaged from the coaches on up.

What people at WYO who are in charge don't care about championships? Start reassigning at the AD level (Tom would be a fantastic in leading a government relations role) and keep reassigning until the culture of mediocrity is squashed.

Again, IF you and others truly believe that there is no hope, then why do you care if there is a shakeup? It shouldn't matter at all to you.

I don't know how many times, and in how many different ways, we can express that "not believing that a complete blowup is necessary or smart at this point in time" is not the same thing as "being accepting of mediocrity".

As for never personally attacking people...sure, you've never devolved into viciousness. But you've continually strawmanned people, misrepresented their positions, and have now reverted to calling everyone who is even remotely okay with this hire (for now) "fanboys". It always blows my mind how people like you have zero self-awareness. Or maybe you do; you just think your veil is thicker than it actually is.

You've also put everyone in an almost lose-lose situation, where you've pressed people so hard on the issue that we've had to spend more time than we should trying to actually express and clarify our position (to no avail) and defend Burman/Sawvell more than we actually want to in general...and making it seem like none of us have any doubts or concerns whatsoever (which isn't true in the slightest). Now, anything less than yearly championship appearances will lead to a repeated "I told you so" from you.

You're also lumping us all together. Again (and I will keep repeating this until you acknowledge it), I was among the first to call for Bohl's head, and remained one of the very few to do so for years...taking an awful lot of flak from Wyoming fans (including many on this board) in the process. I don't believe there is no hope, and I do believe our ceiling is much higher. We get it; you despise the hire. That doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't absolutely loathe the hire is accepting of mediocrity. That also doesn't mean we think Sawvell is God's gift to football either. Again, there is nuance, the two things aren't mutually exclusive, and people who live their life in absolutes and extremes generally aren't people whose opinions I trust anyway.

You've quickly turned into the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Thorburn article today has details on the buyout. Also says that news on assistant coaches/staffing won't come until after the bowl game, and that Sawvel will not call the defense as HC.

"If Sawvel were to leave UW for another job in athletics, at the college or professional level, in the first three years of the contract his buyout would be 80% of his base salary and guaranteed compensation for the remaining years of the agreement. In the final two years of the deal the buyout drops to 70% of his base salary and guaranteed compensation for the remaining years of the agreement.

UW would owe Sawvel the remaining base salary and guaranteed compensation for each of the remaining years of the contract if he is fired without cause."

DamThatRiver22 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:07 am I don't know how many times, and in how many different ways, we can express that "not believing that a complete blowup is necessary or smart at this point in time" is not the same thing as "being accepting of mediocrity".

As for never personally attacking people...sure, you've never devolved into viciousness. But you've continually strawmanned people, misrepresented their positions, and have now reverted to calling everyone who is even remotely okay with this hire (for now) "fanboys". It always blows my mind how people like you have zero self-awareness. Or maybe you do; you just think your veil is thicker than it actually is.

You've also put everyone in an almost lose-lose situation, where you've pressed people so hard on the issue that we've had to spend more time than we should trying to actually express and clarify our position (to no avail) and defend Burman/Sawvell more than we actually want to in general...and making it seem like none of us have any doubts or concerns whatsoever (which isn't true in the slightest). Now, anything less than yearly championship appearances will lead to a repeated "I told you so" from you.

You're also lumping us all together. Again (and I will keep repeating this until you acknowledge it), I was among the first to call for Bohl's head, and remained one of the very few to do so for years...taking an awful lot of flak from Wyoming fans (including many on this board) in the process. I don't believe there is no hope, and I do believe our ceiling is much higher. We get it; you despise the hire. That doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't absolutely loathe the hire is accepting of mediocrity. That also doesn't mean we think Sawvell is God's gift to football either. Again, there is nuance, the two things aren't mutually exclusive, and people who live their life in absolutes and extremes generally aren't people whose opinions I trust anyway.

You've quickly turned into the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Interestingly it appears to be you who can't accept alternative views. I've stated repeatedly that I didn't like the hiring process on this one. The coach himself will succeed or not which will tell the ultimate tale.

Since Burman did this, his future should be tied to this coach and this process. Good or bad.

I'm sorry you can't tolerate that viewpoint. If you haven't solved the riddle yet, I'll give you another clue. Your definition of close and my definition of ass kicking.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 6:37 am

307bball wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2023 3:54 pm
I think it's a real possibility that the people in charge do not view this like you and I....for them it is working as intended and our concerns over no championships don't matter to them. Even our disagreement on "why" there are no championships is immaterial if that is the case.

Does CSU have these same structures that keep them down? In my opinion, no. They have the investment, the market, the urban area for recruits, etc. etc. but it is PEOPLE in charge that have mismanaged from the coaches on up.

What people at WYO who are in charge don't care about championships? Start reassigning at the AD level (Tom would be a fantastic in leading a government relations role) and keep reassigning until the culture of mediocrity is squashed.

Again, IF you and others truly believe that there is no hope, then why do you care if there is a shakeup? It shouldn't matter at all to you.

I've already said that they surely care about championships. I'm pointing out that there are other priorities. As far as CSU facing the same structures...no, not the same and not the point.

If your question about caring whether or not there is a shakeup is directed at me...i care to the extent that it would make things better or worse... And we all know it's possible that it gets worse.

My sense of the way you are formulating this is that it reminds me of how I felt about the program as a much younger person coming up in the '80s. It seems like your claim is that the impediments to winning multiple conference championships are primarily within the control of the leadership at the university. You and the younger me may be correct in that. Now I no longer believe that to be the case.

There seems to have been a fundamental change in how young athletes make the choice to come to a university or even to stay in that university. Without going into the specifics of that change, I think it is obvious that change has had a negative impact on low market appeal institutions. That change is not Craig Bohl's or Tom Burmans fault and it seems to not be in their control.

This change does not have to be big to have a huge impact....Look at the standout athletes that accompanied Some of Wyoming's most successful teams. What if the best players on those teams were just 95% as good as they were....That is all it would take to drop those teams from conference championship caliber to middle of the pack. That is the effect that coaches and AD's at Wyoming are in combat with. I don't know how to solve it and stay distinctly "Wyoming". The path to athletic success nowadays seems obvious...you need deep pocketed NIL structures around your program and some sort of marketing arm that duffers like the folks on this message board probably don't care about, and may even alienate some of us, but will be effective with the current generation of high performing HS and college athletes. Do you see those two things as possible? I guess you could convince me it's possible...but probable?...nope.

Anyways...I seem to have offended you by, in your opinion, defending the "status quo" or something...and I really really really don't appreciate, what seem to me, the bad faith efforts to mischaracterize what I think of the hire and the program in general. I don't agree with DamThatRiver22 about certain specifics but I share his frustration with your style of discourse. Ah well..

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:49 am

DamThatRiver22 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:07 am I don't know how many times, and in how many different ways, we can express that "not believing that a complete blowup is necessary or smart at this point in time" is not the same thing as "being accepting of mediocrity".

As for never personally attacking people...sure, you've never devolved into viciousness. But you've continually strawmanned people, misrepresented their positions, and have now reverted to calling everyone who is even remotely okay with this hire (for now) "fanboys". It always blows my mind how people like you have zero self-awareness. Or maybe you do; you just think your veil is thicker than it actually is.

You've also put everyone in an almost lose-lose situation, where you've pressed people so hard on the issue that we've had to spend more time than we should trying to actually express and clarify our position (to no avail) and defend Burman/Sawvell more than we actually want to in general...and making it seem like none of us have any doubts or concerns whatsoever (which isn't true in the slightest). Now, anything less than yearly championship appearances will lead to a repeated "I told you so" from you.

You're also lumping us all together. Again (and I will keep repeating this until you acknowledge it), I was among the first to call for Bohl's head, and remained one of the very few to do so for years...taking an awful lot of flak from Wyoming fans (including many on this board) in the process. I don't believe there is no hope, and I do believe our ceiling is much higher. We get it; you despise the hire. That doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't absolutely loathe the hire is accepting of mediocrity. That also doesn't mean we think Sawvell is God's gift to football either. Again, there is nuance, the two things aren't mutually exclusive, and people who live their life in absolutes and extremes generally aren't people whose opinions I trust anyway.

You've quickly turned into the most disingenuous, intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Interestingly it appears to be you who can't accept alternative views. I've stated repeatedly that I didn't like the hiring process on this one. The coach himself will succeed or not which will tell the ultimate tale.

Since Burman did this, his future should be tied to this coach and this process. Good or bad.

I'm sorry you can't tolerate that viewpoint. If you haven't solved the riddle yet, I'll give you another clue. Your definition of close and my definition of ass kicking.

Burman could absolutely lose his job if Sawvell turns out to be no good and it would still be a good hire today....those things are not mutually exclusive. It won't make you right or DamThatRiver22 wrong if that turns out to be the case. If your trying to make a change from Bohl without losing the positives he brought....Sawvell is just fine. I've already told you that I would have preferred to have opened up the checkbook and gone after a high profile guy but the move that was made makes complete sense and does not smack of "settling".

Look, it's difference of opinions and I'm not upset. I'm also not asking for multiple championships (nice strawman) just not necessarily dead last in the mwc. Maybe at least 1 in football every quarter of a century maybe even 2.

It is my opinion that the football team has been mediocre mostly the last 10 years and the conference strength has plummeted. That matters to me when evaluating the health of a program. If it were consistently 7 wins against tougher competition, I'd view it differently.

Since I view the program as hovering around mediocre (4th or 5th place in the MWC is mediocre imo), then an internal (seemingly unilateral) hire is accepting that level of program imo. Thus, the admin responsible should be tied to that decision, for better or worse. You don't have to agree but I don't have to agree with you either. It doesn't mean I'm upset.

Also, I won't devolve to the level of personally attacking posters. I'll leave that to the likes of damriver

307bball wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:05 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 7:49 am

Interestingly it appears to be you who can't accept alternative views. I've stated repeatedly that I didn't like the hiring process on this one. The coach himself will succeed or not which will tell the ultimate tale.

Since Burman did this, his future should be tied to this coach and this process. Good or bad.

I'm sorry you can't tolerate that viewpoint. If you haven't solved the riddle yet, I'll give you another clue. Your definition of close and my definition of ass kicking.

Burman could absolutely lose his job if Sawvell turns out to be no good and it would still be a good hire today....those things are not mutually exclusive. It won't make you right or DamThatRiver22 wrong if that turns out to be the case. If your trying to make a change from Bohl without losing the positives he brought....Sawvell is just fine. I've already told you that I would have preferred to have opened up the checkbook and gone after a high profile guy but the move that was made makes complete sense and does not smack of "settling".

Hogwash, Burman made this decision and it is either right as indicated by wins/losses or it wasn't. I hope like hell he's right.

I get what you're saying. I could easily use the same logic. If it works out or not doesn't matter, the process wasn't a good one. That of course is also hogwash but same logic.

The outcome will determine the quality of the decision.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:32 am

307bball wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:05 am

Burman could absolutely lose his job if Sawvell turns out to be no good and it would still be a good hire today....those things are not mutually exclusive. It won't make you right or DamThatRiver22 wrong if that turns out to be the case. If your trying to make a change from Bohl without losing the positives he brought....Sawvell is just fine. I've already told you that I would have preferred to have opened up the checkbook and gone after a high profile guy but the move that was made makes complete sense and does not smack of "settling".

Hogwash, Burman made this decision and it is either right as indicated by wins/losses or it wasn't. I hope like hell he's right.

I get what you're saying. I could easily use the same logic. If it works out or not doesn't matter, the process wasn't a good one. That of course is also hogwash but same logic.

The outcome will determine the quality of the decision.

Ok can we move on. You made your point known that you believe a head coaching hire is the reason for wins and losses in today’s college football environment. I guess teams like Ohio State just get lucky with every coaching hire ever.

OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:50 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:32 am

Hogwash, Burman made this decision and it is either right as indicated by wins/losses or it wasn't. I hope like hell he's right.

I get what you're saying. I could easily use the same logic. If it works out or not doesn't matter, the process wasn't a good one. That of course is also hogwash but same logic.

The outcome will determine the quality of the decision.

Ok can we move on. You made your point known that you believe a head coaching hire is the reason for wins and losses in today’s college football environment. I guess teams like Ohio State just get lucky with every coaching hire ever.

Now there's a strawman, lol.

I'd say teams like unlv, nmsu, and maybe joser are a few examples of teams that have made some good decisions. Doesn't joser have more mwc chips than us?

I'm starting to see why Sternberg was so unpopular

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:55 am

OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:50 am

Ok can we move on. You made your point known that you believe a head coaching hire is the reason for wins and losses in today’s college football environment. I guess teams like Ohio State just get lucky with every coaching hire ever.

Now there's a strawman, lol.

I'd say teams like unlv, nmsu, and maybe joser are a few examples of teams that have made some good decisions. Doesn't joser have more mwc chips than us?

I'm starting to see why Sternberg was so unpopular

So we should strive to be UNLV, SJSU and NMSU...

Let's look at the last 6 years (I picked 6 rather than 5 because 2020 wasn't much of a year)

Total Wins:
UNLV – 24
NMSU – 25
SJSU – 32
Wyoming - 38

OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:55 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:55 am

Now there's a strawman, lol.

I'd say teams like unlv, nmsu, and maybe joser are a few examples of teams that have made some good decisions. Doesn't joser have more mwc chips than us?

I'm starting to see why Sternberg was so unpopular

So we should strive to be UNLV, SJSU and NMSU...

Let's look at the last 6 years (I picked 6 rather than 5 because 2020 wasn't much of a year)

Total Wins:
UNLV – 24
NMSU – 25
SJSU – 32
Wyoming - 38

Another strawman. nmsu and unlv were in conference championship games within, what 2 years of hiring new coaches? sjsu is actually pretty similar to Bohl, I suppose, though have won a chip and 6 conference games under Brennan. Maybe usu is also out of reach.

We remain chipless in the mwc and fewest chips in MWC. I just think that perhaps things can be done a little different.

Fear of defeat ensures defeat in the long-term, imo. 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.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 8:55 am
I'd say teams like unlv, nmsu, and maybe joser are a few examples of teams that have made some good decisions. Doesn't joser have more mwc chips than us?

I'm starting to see why Sternberg was so unpopular

And since you are under the belief that San Jose State has been more successful in the MWC than Wyoming...SJSU has one championship and that 2020 'championship' hardly counts because it wasn't a full schedule. And guess what bowl game SJSU got for its big MWC championship? SJSU got thumped in the ARIZONA BOWL 13-34 to BALL STATE.

Since joining the MWC in 2013, SJSU has been to 4 bowls (counting this year) and the most wins that SJSU has had in any season was 7. SJSU's only bowl win came in a season where they were eligible at 5-7 because there weren't enough bowl teams.

Gosh, I wish Wyoming could get to 7 wins, oh wait...

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:07 am

OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 9:55 am

So we should strive to be UNLV, SJSU and NMSU...

Let's look at the last 6 years (I picked 6 rather than 5 because 2020 wasn't much of a year)

Total Wins:
UNLV – 24
NMSU – 25
SJSU – 32
Wyoming - 38

sjsu is actually pretty similar to Bohl

I'm not sure George Santos is the most reliable source.

OrediggerPoke wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:11 am

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:07 am

sjsu is actually pretty similar to Bohl

I'm not sure George Santos is the most reliable source.

80% in conference, 1 chip even if you don't count it, and 6 conference wins twice. Based on his last 3 years, I'll bet he ends up really similar to Bohl.

You're right though, not the best example for escaping mediocrity.

ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 10:07 am 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.

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