• 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!

Attempt to predict by looking back

3

307bball

Well-known member
I think the entire Bohl Era is long enough to be stiatistically significant and it was an example of what should at least be possible at Wyoming. I went through and looked at Wyoming's record against teams that will be in the new MWC starting next year and did the same for teams that will be in the new PAC starting next year.

Record against teams in the new MWC: 23-16
Record against teams in the new PAC: 15-22

Obviously, at this moment, Sawful probably couldn't win in any conference. The point of this was to see how "competetive" we were against those two cohorts of teams over that period of time. I didn't do this for each team in both groups so I can't compare that but it's obvious we are better competetively in the new MWC than in the new PAC. In fact, with the exception of CSU (haha), we probably have the worst success if ranked against that group. In the new MWC group, we would were right there in the mix with the top teams over that time span.

All this to say, If we assume that Sawful is eventually fired (please, please, please), Wyoming is a place that has shown it can structurally compete and even do very well against the new conference. For some reason i'm just not excited for this ... am I crazy? Is it wrong to feel this way?
 
307bball said:
I think the entire Bohl Era is long enough to be stiatistically significant and it was an example of what should at least be possible at Wyoming. I went through and looked at Wyoming's record against teams that will be in the new MWC starting next year and did the same for teams that will be in the new PAC starting next year.

Record against teams in the new MWC: 23-16
Record against teams in the new PAC: 15-22

Obviously, at this moment, Sawful probably couldn't win in any conference. The point of this was to see how "competetive" we were against those two cohorts of teams over that period of time. I didn't do this for each team in both groups so I can't compare that but it's obvious we are better competetively in the new MWC than in the new PAC. In fact, with the exception of CSU (haha), we probably have the worst success if ranked against that group. In the new MWC group, we would were right there in the mix with the top teams over that time span.

All this to say, If we assume that Sawful is eventually fired (please, please, please), Wyoming is a place that has shown it can structurally compete and even do very well against the new conference. For some reason i'm just not excited for this ... am I crazy? Is it wrong to feel this way?
Click to expand...
"Wyoming is a place that has shown it can structurally compete and even do very well against the new conference." Add you will get a contract extension every other year.
 
307bball said:
All this to say, If we assume that Sawful is eventually fired (please, please, please), Wyoming is a place that has shown it can structurally compete and even do very well against the new conference. For some reason i'm just not excited for this ... am I crazy? Is it wrong to feel this way?
Click to expand...
No, its not wrong to feel that way. We were supposed to compete when TCU, Utah and BYC left also. In the 15 years since, we appeared in (and actually hosted) one CCG and realistically were conference champion contenders maybe 2 other seasons.
 
Last edited:
307bball said:
I think the entire Bohl Era is long enough to be stiatistically significant and it was an example of what should at least be possible at Wyoming. I went through and looked at Wyoming's record against teams that will be in the new MWC starting next year and did the same for teams that will be in the new PAC starting next year.

Record against teams in the new MWC: 23-16
Record against teams in the new PAC: 15-22

Obviously, at this moment, Sawful probably couldn't win in any conference. The point of this was to see how "competetive" we were against those two cohorts of teams over that period of time. I didn't do this for each team in both groups so I can't compare that but it's obvious we are better competetively in the new MWC than in the new PAC. In fact, with the exception of CSU (haha), we probably have the worst success if ranked against that group. In the new MWC group, we would were right there in the mix with the top teams over that time span.

All this to say, If we assume that Sawful is eventually fired (please, please, please), Wyoming is a place that has shown it can structurally compete and even do very well against the new conference. For some reason i'm just not excited for this ... am I crazy? Is it wrong to feel this way?
Click to expand...
I think a lot of fans feel this way.

We aren't just moving down in competition level, we are also now in a conference with teams that have no historic or geographic relevance to us. These school aren't so much "peer intuitions" as they are schools that just happened to have about the same athletic brand relevance and media valuation as us.

It really hit home with me when the MWC started calling UNLV and Air Force the conference's "flagship programs" and agreed to give them more money. UNLV has a pretty anemic football history and hasn't really had a good basketball program in almost three decades. Air Force has one of the worst basketball programs in the entire region and the football program hasn't been nationally relevant in a long time. When these two are your "flagship programs", you know you are in trouble.

I know a lot of people seem to think the teams that left for the PAC are, at the very least, going to end up in about the same situation as the current MWC teams. I disagree. I believe the PAC teams are in a much better position to thrive financially and athletically long-term than the MWC teams are. Only time will tell though.
 
None of this will look the same in 5-10 years (or sooner). The bowl system is on its last breath. G6 is going to get waxed in the playoff system which will force change faster. Notre Dame being left out over a G6 team, even if that is what the rules are, added several nails to the coffin. If the g6 doesn't compete, the rumblings will become roars.

Once the g6 is booted, it's hard for us to imagine, bur there will be 0 national interest in our level even for the media darlings like bsu. Conference payouts will be slashed. TV slots will be eliminated except for regional broadcasts and a handful of national games.

We haven't seen the level of irrelevancy that's coming. It will be for all of g6.

It will be less interesting for sure. I guess fcs still generates a regional interest. That's where we're going
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
None of this will look the same in 5-10 years (or sooner). The bowl system is on its last breath. G6 is going to get waxed in the playoff system which will force change faster. Notre Dame being left out over a G6 team, even if that is what the rules are, added several nails to the coffin. If the g6 doesn't compete, the rumblings will become roars.

Once the g6 is booted, it's hard for us to imagine, bur there will be 0 national interest in our level even for the media darlings like bsu. Conference payouts will be slashed. TV slots will be eliminated except for regional broadcasts and a handful of national games.

We haven't seen the level of irrelevancy that's coming. It will be for all of g6.

It will be less interesting for sure. I guess fcs still generates a regional interest. That's where we're going
Click to expand...
In general, I think you are right.

But just like there are tiers in the power league - people care way more about SEC football than they do about ACC football - there will also be tiers in the G6 league.

The G6 teams might all be losing relevancy/money, but the degree still matters. We would be better off positioning ourselves to be toward the top of whatever the new G6 league looks like.
 
TheRealUW said:
In general, I think you are right.

But just like there are tiers in the power league - people care way more about SEC football than they do about ACC football - there will also be tiers in the G6 league.

The G6 teams might all be losing relevancy/money, but the degree still matters. We would be better off positioning ourselves to be toward the top of whatever the new G6 league looks like.
Click to expand...

For sure. For most of our fans, competing in a championship or playoffs will be all that matters.

I'll miss the delusion that we might compete for a playoff spot, but I'll bet I'm the minority.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
None of this will look the same in 5-10 years (or sooner). The bowl system is on its last breath. G6 is going to get waxed in the playoff system which will force change faster. Notre Dame being left out over a G6 team, even if that is what the rules are, added several nails to the coffin. If the g6 doesn't compete, the rumblings will become roars.

Once the g6 is booted, it's hard for us to imagine, bur there will be 0 national interest in our level even for the media darlings like bsu. Conference payouts will be slashed. TV slots will be eliminated except for regional broadcasts and a handful of national games.

We haven't seen the level of irrelevancy that's coming. It will be for all of g6.

It will be less interesting for sure. I guess fcs still generates a regional interest. That's where we're going
Click to expand...
If you are right, and even programs like BSU are destined for this irrelevance, then there really was never a path for Wyoming to be much of anything.

Ultimately...I think you are right here and that is why I'm cynical about the whole endeavor. If Boise State style dominance still ends in FCS-style irrelevance then I'm pretty sure having a better athletic director wouldn't have helped either. Would have been a fun ride though.
 
307bball said:
If you are right, and even programs like BSU are destined for this irrelevance, then there really was never a path for Wyoming to be much of anything.

Ultimately...I think you are right here and that is why I'm cynical about the whole endeavor. If Boise State style dominance still ends in FCS-style irrelevance then I'm pretty sure having a better athletic director wouldn't have helped either. Would have been a fun ride though.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point about Burman. I think many just want consistently solid programs with really good years and fantastic years. Bohl had a couple pretty good years but the athletic department has been devoid of fantastic years.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think most begrudge TB for not getting us into the P4. Most begrudge him because he hasn't been successful enough at the g6 level.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
You're missing the point about Burman. I think many just want consistently solid programs with really good years and fantastic years. Bohl had a couple pretty good years but the athletic department has been devoid of fantastic years.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think most begrudge TB for not getting us into the P4. Most begrudge him because he hasn't been successful enough at the g6 level.
Click to expand...
I think I get that point about Burman pretty clearly...I just don't share the animus that some on here do for him. I though most of the discontent that is voiced on here was centered around the slide into irrelevance that has happened and I have always been perplexed by language that made that into Burman's fault. I think I fundamentally misunderstood some people on this topic. The changes in college football that have not been good for UW pre-date Burman and, if you are right that even schools as good as BSU are destined for merely regional relevance, than nobody in that position was going to make any difference in that.

Now, we sure could have been a heck of a lot better in the final years that it was possible...that is totally Burman's fault.
 
307bball said:
I think I get that point about Burman pretty clearly...I just don't share the animus that some on here do for him. I though most of the discontent that is voiced on here was centered around the slide into irrelevance that has happened and I have always been perplexed by language that made that into Burman's fault. I think I fundamentally misunderstood some people on this topic. The changes in college football that have not been good for UW pre-date Burman and, if you are right that even schools as good as BSU are destined for merely regional relevance, than nobody in that position was going to make any difference in that.

Now, we sure could have been a heck of a lot better in the final years that it was possible...that is totally Burman's fault.
Click to expand...

I think if TB had usu-level success, there wouldn't be near the noise.

usu level success should be doable.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
I think if TB had usu-level success, there wouldn't be near the noise.

usu level success should be doable.
Click to expand...
agree that level of success is doable...unfortunately the finger is pointed at the late 80s and early 90s by the people making the noise. Absent something that flirts with that, I don't see us old-heads (or the really old-heads) very happy.
 
Yes the 80s and 90s were ok, but the real run was in the 60s. A nationally prominent program. I will take the 80s and 90s, but that environment is long gone and now we are in a watered down conference that will soon add Tarleton State and UC-Davis as football members. The smartest thing we did back then was dump UTEP and now they are back.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
None of this will look the same in 5-10 years (or sooner). The bowl system is on its last breath. G6 is going to get waxed in the playoff system which will force change faster. Notre Dame being left out over a G6 team, even if that is what the rules are, added several nails to the coffin. If the g6 doesn't compete, the rumblings will become roars.

Once the g6 is booted, it's hard for us to imagine, bur there will be 0 national interest in our level even for the media darlings like bsu. Conference payouts will be slashed. TV slots will be eliminated except for regional broadcasts and a handful of national games.

We haven't seen the level of irrelevancy that's coming. It will be for all of g6.

It will be less interesting for sure. I guess fcs still generates a regional interest. That's where we're going
Click to expand...
The talking heads are now even beinging that thinking to March Madness. I've said for years that as soon as they can take and keep the Dance for themselves, they will. Then it's truly over.
 
Brew_Poke said:
What do you think the PACstabbers just did? We're below that, closer to FCS than to the top of G6.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I have always thought the teams leaving for the PAC are going to be in a much better position than the teams staying in the MWC from a long-term perspective.
 
TheRealUW said:
I believe the PAC teams are in a much better position to thrive financially and athletically long-term than the MWC teams are.
Click to expand...
Totally depends on what their complete media deal looks like.....and for some reason, they aren't interested in sharing the details about. Good media deal = future. How our media deal stacks up against the other G6 conference media deals will determine our place in the G6.
 
LanderPoke said:
Meh not really
Click to expand...
I'm here too. It wasn't like there was a ton of value when they were in mwc. Adding osu and wsu doesn't move the needle. None of them beat out the Sun Belt for the 2nd g5 bid. If they're better than the Sun Belt, why no playoff?

As the split with p4 widens, differences between g6 narrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top