Craig Bohl's Legacy

[307bball]

*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.

Looks 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.

Luckily we faced a lot of bad teams.

Just not that controversial.

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.

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.

[ragtimejoe1]

Looks 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.

Luckily we faced a lot of bad teams.

Just not that controversial.

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.

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.

Actually, the last year for DC was 5-7 and 3-5. Pretty similar to several of Bohl's years.

I'll stick with kept us out of the cellar. Arguably 2021 would have been a cellar year if not for weak ooc. Another year where a $hit schedule saved us.

[LawPoke]

1-21 in conference over those years. How quickly folks forget I guess.

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Bohl was 61-60 at Wyoming. We can slice, dice, excuse, lament, and discount, but the reality is that he was average. He won some games against P5 schools - and lost more. He beat CSU - which was great. He lost to Boise in every game but 1 - which is bad. He took us to mediocre bowl games. He never won a title. He lost to FCS schools he shouldn't have lost to. He was what Wyoming celebrates: the very definition of mediocrity. He got more arrogant and crotchety over the years and was extremely stodgy and set in his ways. He did graduate kids and put players in the league. I think he could evaluate talent, but outside of defensive players, never developed that talent.

[307bball]

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.

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.

Actually, the last year for DC was 5-7 and 3-5. Pretty similar to several of Bohl's years.

I'll stick with kept us out of the cellar. Arguably 2021 would have been a cellar year if not for weak ooc. Another year where a $hit schedule saved us.

...well...I'm trying to find a non-controversial broad brush. Individual years are not as indicative of broader trends. The point of the thread was to discuss Bohl's legacy .... not the worst year or the best year. I'm not comparing Bohl's body of work to DC's last year. The years preceeding Bohl were undeniably cellar dwelling.

[ragtimejoe1]

Actually, the last year for DC was 5-7 and 3-5. Pretty similar to several of Bohl's years.

I'll stick with kept us out of the cellar. Arguably 2021 would have been a cellar year if not for weak ooc. Another year where a $hit schedule saved us.

...well...I'm trying to find a non-controversial broad brush. Individual years are not as indicative of broader trends. The point of the thread was to discuss Bohl's legacy .... not the worst year or the best year. I'm not comparing Bohl's body of work to DC's last year. The years preceeding Bohl were undeniably cellar dwelling.

DC was mid-mwc most years except 1. I'd characterize it as going from low mediocre to high mediocre.

Bohl is definitely better than DC not arguing that. If DC wasn't such an ass, I think he'd eventually been pretty similar over time. That's speculation. Based on the body of work, Bohl is obvious better.

[bullbugle307]

307, I can’t follow your logic past this point. You keep going back to this idea “If the jump in conference wins per year were due, in the main, to a weaker conference.... All or most of the teams in common from both eras would have experienced an increase in conference wins similar to what Wyoming did. That did not happen. You can't un-see the facts.”

I don’t see how it would even be possible to have the conference go downhill without those teams losing more games. So therefore, they couldn’t possibly win more games and be in a weaker conference. That scenario that you’re using to justify your argument literally could not exist in my mind.

[OrediggerPoke]

...well...I'm trying to find a non-controversial broad brush. Individual years are not as indicative of broader trends. The point of the thread was to discuss Bohl's legacy .... not the worst year or the best year. I'm not comparing Bohl's body of work to DC's last year. The years preceeding Bohl were undeniably cellar dwelling.

DC was mid-mwc most years except 1. I'd characterize it as going from low mediocre to high mediocre.

Bohl is definitely better than DC not arguing that. If DC wasn't such an ass, I think he'd eventually been pretty similar over time. That's speculation. Based on the body of work, Bohl is obvious better.

No he wouldn’t. DC has no idea how to build or manage a program. He flamed out of college football and now struggles to win games as a coach in Poland.

[OrediggerPoke]

...well...I'm trying to find a non-controversial broad brush. Individual years are not as indicative of broader trends. The point of the thread was to discuss Bohl's legacy .... not the worst year or the best year. I'm not comparing Bohl's body of work to DC's last year. The years preceeding Bohl were undeniably cellar dwelling.

DC was mid-mwc most years except 1. I'd characterize it as going from low mediocre to high mediocre.

Bohl is definitely better than DC not arguing that. If DC wasn't such an ass, I think he'd eventually been pretty similar over time. That's speculation. Based on the body of work, Bohl is obvious better.

The Wroclaw Panthers:

Before Dave Christensen became HC: 5 straight undefeated seasons and 5 consecutive Polska Bowl championships.

Dave Christensen in 2 seasons: 13-12 record


‘He’d be similar over time’….poop. Mr. Program Killer is busy at work now in the Polish league.

[ragtimejoe1]

DC was mid-mwc most years except 1. I'd characterize it as going from low mediocre to high mediocre.

Bohl is definitely better than DC not arguing that. If DC wasn't such an ass, I think he'd eventually been pretty similar over time. That's speculation. Based on the body of work, Bohl is obvious better.

The Wroclaw Panthers:

Before Dave Christensen became HC: 5 straight undefeated seasons and 5 consecutive Polska Bowl championships.

Dave Christensen in 2 seasons: 13-12 record


‘He’d be similar over time’….poop. Mr. Program Killer is busy at work now in the Polish league.

5 years of dc, 27-35; 16-23; 2 bowl games
5 years of Bohl; 28-35; 19-21; 2 bowl games

DC was not a good coach. The mwc was $hitty enough that I see no reason he couldn't continue similarly to his first 5 years. A marginal bump in success puts him pretty damn close to Bohl.

[307bball]

307, I can’t follow your logic past this point. You keep going back to this idea “If the jump in conference wins per year were due, in the main, to a weaker conference.... All or most of the teams in common from both eras would have experienced an increase in conference wins similar to what Wyoming did. That did not happen. You can't un-see the facts.”

I don’t see how it would even be possible to have the conference go downhill without those teams losing more games. So therefore, they couldn’t possibly win more games and be in a weaker conference. That scenario that you’re using to justify your argument literally could not exist in my mind.

I'll try and explain it better. I think the confusion is that people think I'm saying the conference has not gotten weaker .... that is really not at all what I'm saying. the amount of games/team that happen in conference has not changed .... still have an 8 game conference slate. The top third of the teams generally win about half of the conference games...same for both eras. The other thing to keep in mind is that OOC games are not relevant to assigning the cause of changes in conference win totals. Craig Bohl's overall win total may be inflated by playing terrible OOC teams but, in conference, you can analyze it differently since all the teams play very similar in-conference schedules.

Everybody agrees that the MWC with BYU, Utah, and TCU was a stronger conference than the current MWC. There is some disagreement about the magnitude of the strength difference but we'll leave that aside. Craig Bohl takes over in 2014 and after struggling while rebuilding for two seasons, ends up with 8 years of consistent non-terrible football that coaches since Dana Dimel had been unable to do. Some have made the claim that...well...of course he has been able to succeed where those other coaches couldn't. It might not be that he's great or even good....nothing has really changed except that the conference has gotten worse so number of wins has increased. Seems logical right. And it does sound logical. Looking forward from the time that those three teams left the conference...The teams that remained knew that they were going to be replacing those programs with teams that were not going to be as good, and therefore, should lead to more wins. If those 6 programs did nothing but maintain what they were doing...all of them should have seen an increase in conference wins simply because three teams left that were beating the other 6 and would be replaced by teams that you would have a better chance of beating year in and year out. It turns out that 6 teams were added...one of which turned out to be another version of the teams that nobody could really beat (BSU) and the other 5 have sort of fit in competitively.

That is a lot of background but it's necessary to set the table. In the new environment .... Wyoming went from winning 2.25 conference games per year to winning 4.13 conference games per year. Surely that gain is caused by playing a weaker group of teams in conference right?...well...perhaps some of that gain is due to that...but what happened to SDSU, CSU, and the other teams that Wyoming has shared a conference with? Some of them saw a modest increase in wins....but nowhere near what Wyoming did..some of them even got much worse. Why did they not increase their wins as much as Wyoming did? After all..they all are playing a similar conference schedule. The answer is that while it sucks to see the conference get worse in terms of national relevance, it turns out to be a bad explanation for disparities in coach performance across eras. CSU and UNM went from good coaching situations to bad coaching situations and playing in a bad conference didn't help them. SDSU, UNLV, and AFA all went up a bit ... if they were able to maintain something that was working (AFA), the conference getting softer surely helps to some degree...for SDSU, they have really upped their program while UNLV has just recently been able to figure it out. All this to say...it's hard to look at the results of these programs and say that the only reason CB did something that other coaches since Dimel could not, is that the conference got a lot worse. That may have happened, but winning more conference games is more of a result in good coaching and good programs than wherever the conference sits in the conference power rankings.

[ragtimejoe1]

So, 307, then dc was a good coach? Analyzing conference wins fire first 5 years, he's similar to Bohl.

[307bball]

So, 307, then dc was a good coach? Analyzing conference wins fire first 5 years, he's similar to Bohl.

I what to be careful so I don't get misunderstood. Your question is (paraphrased), "was DC a good coach?".... If my options are yes/no then I would say no. It would be a misunderstanding to think I'm saying he's terrible though.

The back and forth that we have had previously does not extend to analyzing DC. That conversation was specifically pointed towards what I maintain is a mistake when considering coaching performance at Wyoming, particularly across eras. Namely, the attempt to use SOS (or conference strength) as an explanation of coaching performance.

That is not to say the SOS is meaningless... If you have to decide who to put in a playoff where teams with identical records are candidates.... It becomes an important factor in understanding which team was better. Even in that case where SOS was used against teams like BSU to keep them out of higher profile games in the post season... Is it coherent to make the claim that the BSU coaches were not as good as the powerhouse coaches because they played a weaker schedule? I think not. It's useful if you are trying to decide what team is the strongest... But it's not great at telling us how good a coach is.

[ragtimejoe1]

So, 307, then dc was a good coach? Analyzing conference wins fire first 5 years, he's similar to Bohl.

I what to be careful so I don't get misunderstood. Your question is (paraphrased), "was DC a good coach?".... If my options are yes/no then I would say no. It would be a misunderstanding to think I'm saying he's terrible though.

The back and forth that we have had previously does not extend to analyzing DC. That conversation was specifically pointed towards what I maintain is a mistake when considering coaching performance at Wyoming, particularly across eras. Namely, the attempt to use SOS (or conference strength) as an explanation of coaching performance.

That is not to say the SOS is meaningless... If you have to decide who to put in a playoff where teams with identical records are candidates.... It becomes an important factor in understanding which team was better. Even in that case where SOS was used against teams like BSU to keep them out of higher profile games in the post season... Is it coherent to make the claim that the BSU coaches were not as good as the powerhouse coaches because they played a weaker schedule? I think not. It's useful if you are trying to decide what team is the strongest... But it's not great at telling us how good a coach is.

Well, using your conference win metric, dc increased to 3.2 which is well above previous years. If good for Bohl should also be good for dc, right?

[bullbugle307]

If I get bored enough this weekend I’ll go tally up who we beat in conference across Glenn, DC, and Bohl individually and collectively. I’d be curious to see what percentage of our wins came against those 6 or whatever teams across coaches and across that era. I think that could be telling.

[OrediggerPoke]

The Wroclaw Panthers:

Before Dave Christensen became HC: 5 straight undefeated seasons and 5 consecutive Polska Bowl championships.

Dave Christensen in 2 seasons: 13-12 record


‘He’d be similar over time’….poop. Mr. Program Killer is busy at work now in the Polish league.

5 years of dc, 27-35; 16-23; 2 bowl games
5 years of Bohl; 28-35; 19-21; 2 bowl games

DC was not a good coach. The mwc was $hitty enough that I see no reason he couldn't continue similarly to his first 5 years. A marginal bump in success puts him pretty damn close to Bohl.

This is a ridiculous comparison. DC’s last year was terrible and he left the program in shambles. Bohl had little to build on. After the first 2 years, we were never complete garbage.

[307bball]

I what to be careful so I don't get misunderstood. Your question is (paraphrased), "was DC a good coach?".... If my options are yes/no then I would say no. It would be a misunderstanding to think I'm saying he's terrible though.

The back and forth that we have had previously does not extend to analyzing DC. That conversation was specifically pointed towards what I maintain is a mistake when considering coaching performance at Wyoming, particularly across eras. Namely, the attempt to use SOS (or conference strength) as an explanation of coaching performance.

That is not to say the SOS is meaningless... If you have to decide who to put in a playoff where teams with identical records are candidates.... It becomes an important factor in understanding which team was better. Even in that case where SOS was used against teams like BSU to keep them out of higher profile games in the post season... Is it coherent to make the claim that the BSU coaches were not as good as the powerhouse coaches because they played a weaker schedule? I think not. It's useful if you are trying to decide what team is the strongest... But it's not great at telling us how good a coach is.

Well, using your conference win metric, dc increased to 3.2 which is well above previous years. If good for Bohl should also be good for dc, right?

If you want to make that claim, you are free to do so. My previous response stands.

[ragtimejoe1]

Well, using your conference win metric, dc increased to 3.2 which is well above previous years. If good for Bohl should also be good for dc, right?

If you want to make that claim, you are free to do so. My previous response stands.

I'm just trying to follow your logic? Your analysis applied to dc would mean he's 1 of the better coaches.

[ragtimejoe1]

5 years of dc, 27-35; 16-23; 2 bowl games
5 years of Bohl; 28-35; 19-21; 2 bowl games

DC was not a good coach. The mwc was $hitty enough that I see no reason he couldn't continue similarly to his first 5 years. A marginal bump in success puts him pretty damn close to Bohl.

This is a ridiculous comparison. DC’s last year was terrible and he left the program in shambles. Bohl had little to build on. After the first 2 years, we were never complete garbage.

DC's last year was pretty damn close to several of Bohl's years.

[OrediggerPoke]

This is a ridiculous comparison. DC’s last year was terrible and he left the program in shambles. Bohl had little to build on. After the first 2 years, we were never complete garbage.

DC's last year was pretty damn close to several of Bohl's years.

As we discussed, DC left a program in tatters. Excluding Bohl's first 2 years, please point me to a season where Bohl's teams utterly got their asses handed to them losing to Texas State by 21, Colorado State by 30, San Jose State, Fresno by 38, Bose by 41 and Utah State by 28.

@ (18) Nebraska Big Ten L 34 37 0 1 L 1

@ Texas State Sun Belt L 21 42 3 2 L 1

Colorado State MWC L 22 52 4 3 L 1

@ San Jose State MWC L 44 51 4 4 L 2

(17) Fresno State MWC L 10 48 4 5 L 3

@ Boise State MWC L 7 48 4 6 L 4

@ Utah State MWC L 7 35 5 7 L 1

[307bball]

If you want to make that claim, you are free to do so. My previous response stands.

I'm just trying to follow your logic? Your analysis applied to dc would mean he's 1 of the better coaches.

The context of my "logic" applies within it's context. Not outside of it. I tried to explain where it's applicable. That context is within the question of how much does conference strength affect win totals and how applicable is that when comparing coaches across eras.

It has no relevance to my opinion of DC....or Glenn or Bohl or any other coach for that matter.