ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
What do you think? It's truly 1 or the other. Burman worked with these guys for several years so it isn't like it's just a bad hire off of a job interview.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!
2 options at this point
- Thread starter ragtimejoe1
- Start date
PokeTransplant
Well-known member
Nah...third choice is clean house. Burman and every hire he has made needs to have a real evaluation as to what vision they bring to their respective programs. (Sunny is not excuded...as much as I am excited by him). They need to have real, tangible goals defined, and if they do not meet or exceed those goals, their contract is null and void. I am looking at 3 year contracts that define performance expectations with the real possibility of risks that may be realized during that time taken into consideration. No more, just "trying to compete" and more "we SHALL do" x,y, and z....
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
This is about what happened?
Going forward it is clear we need to take it out of Burman's hands and wyo1016's take will probably be terrible regardless, lol
PokeTransplant
Well-known member
We know that we don't have the administration to pull that trigger. Wyoming has always been and will always be risk adverse. Our only hope is that someone within the administration actually grow some ballz to change course...
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Why are we here? Is Burman that bad or did Junior's promotion cloud the judgement?
That's not to hard of a question to answer... Sawvell is a really bad coach. He's so bad I'm actually sort of impressed.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
So Burman spent 4 years with the guy and just misread it? Your take. Got it.
307barracuda
Well-known member
Burman missed a lot of things, all the quality coaches left or were selected by much better talent evaluators, and we are left with Vic 2.0, and worse in this era. It’s an FU to the fanbase and players, and on top of current events, a complete disgrace to the state. Unless the goal is to be left behind, as we are in every thing else.
Why are we here is probably too low resolution of a question.....here are some more pointed ones if you are confused.
Why are we 0-4 in this embarrassing fashion?....because Sawvell is as bad of a coach as has roamed the sidelines. Why is he a bad head coach?...I don't know, but, like Koenning before him...the well liked and seemingly good coordinator does not always make a good head coach.
Why did Burman hire Sawvell?.......You claim to know the reasons, but your explanation is dumb and I've already gone rounds with you about that. Burman hired Sawvell for all the reasons he gave at the time. I tuned in...listened and thought "well...hope it goes well, and they are saying all the right things, but I don't think he'll even be able to maintain what Bohl accomplished". That was a sentiment that, if you strip out the conspiratorial overtones, you seemed to agree with. Or are you now claiming you saw this level of embarrassment coming?
Why is Wyoming being left behind (again) in yet more conference shuffling?....Again...a question that has lots of tendrils. My thoughts on this are not a secret. I have observed the shifting (always away from UW) sands of college football for many years. With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's pretty clear that lacking Wyoming putting together a BSU level (or close to it) run of competitive football, this was always going to be the outcome. Burman has presided over the death of UW athletics but the car was off the road by the time he took the helm. Unfortunately.....the UW athletic director seems limited by the position. If he had been as visionary as you obviously are (sarcasm intended) he could have at least steered the car into a better direction....but it's hard to imagine anybody making the series of perfect hires that would have staved this off. And let's put a button on this...that is what would have staved this off. Imagine if Wyoming had just had the trio of Koetter, Hawkins, and Petersen instead of Dimel, Koenning, Glenn and Christensen from '98 through 2013? They obviously had what it takes to win at a school that, at the time, was at a resource disadvantage relative to the rest of college football.
Your dislike for Burman is clouding your judgement and causing you to focus too much on him. He is a symptom of the problem and an average AD at best....put him in an "average" college football program and you'll get "average" results, at best. Wyoming has always needed well above average leaders for UW programs. There are few, if any, built in advantages at UW over other schools they are competing with. This means that if you do what other people do you will always be looking up at them. Your Idea of paying those leaders the bottom of the barrel in terms of guaranteed money but beefed up incentives may or may not have actually worked but it would have at least attracted super risk-seeking people to coaching and administrative positions. That would have at least been interesting to watch in the same way it's cool to see a meth trailer blow up....this slow degradation is intolerable.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
I said I get it. You think Burman made a wise choice that turned out to be wrong. PBJ wasn't a bad choice at the time but turns out he's a bad coach. We don't need a book chapter.
Fact is Burman knew him and could evaluate him for 4 years. Burman himself said he reflected for 6 months because he had a suspicion Bohl could retire. Burman is either terrible at evaluating potential coaching candidates or something clouded his judgement. Out of the entire staff (Polasek was still here), he chose one of the worst options as it turns out. Those are the facts. He either is a terrible decision maker or something else came into play.
Fact is Burman knew him and could evaluate him for 4 years. Burman himself said he reflected for 6 months because he had a suspicion Bohl could retire. Burman is either terrible at evaluating potential coaching candidates or something clouded his judgement. Out of the entire staff (Polasek was still here), he chose one of the worst options as it turns out. Those are the facts. He either is a terrible decision maker or something else came into play.
This is news to me. You are good at sifting through old forum posts...If I remember correctly, I characterized it as "making sense" or that the Sawvell hire was "defensible"....wise?...I think you have me confused with somebody else but that is probably giving you too much credit....far more likely that you don't want to engage with the ramifications of Wyoming being largely left behind by everybody....not just college athletics. It's much easier to just cry about how corrupt Burman is and bang on about how they did Sternberg dirty...both things that may be true...but again...are symptoms.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Fair enough. You feel it was defensible and made sense. We get it.
I'll go with terrible based on the fact he had 4 years of experience with the guy and 6 months to reflect on the best candidate. You might excuse that type of failure because of all the problems at little ole WYO but I think that's horseshit. The derailment of the football program in 9 months is the failure of the coaches and the people who put the coaches there. This thread explores the latter. Does Burman just suck at picking coaches or?
The evidence suggests he definitely sucks at that...which is too bad since that's really all he can do to affect athletic success.
As far as how I personally feel/felt about the elevation of Sawvell...I was mostly pessimistic at the time of the announcement. I even said as much at the time...you can go find my post about it. It "made sense" in the way that corporate types cover their a$% when they make decisions. Isn't that obvious? If you go out on a limb and it goes south you get crucified but if you make a "safe" choice then you'll suffer less consequence...this is the risk aversion that I think we all see as having really hamstrung Wyoming.
At this time, with the benefit of hindsight, we see that even this "safe" or "defensible" choice is actually incredibly disastrous. Did you have us being 0-4 in this fashion? If you did, I'm impressed. I figured we would struggle to get to .500 and said 7 wins would be a "successful" season in my eyes.
Your need to paint people who merely think of Burman as a replacement level empty suit as "defenders of mediocrity" or "Burman defenders" is bordering on pathological. The top spin and personal animus you put into your "takes" is a bummer because if you strip that out you actually make some pretty interesting points.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
For the record, I don't despise Burman. I'm not a fan of the job he's done. I don't think he should be fired because he has to be relatively close to retirement. Reassignment to a position of need that can take advantage of his strengths is most appropriate.
Well...we at least agree here.
