Bohl 2023….

[ragtimejoe1]

1) if level of investment is irrelevant, then why invest beyond the bottom of league? If level of investment is irrelevant, why is there an arms race in college football? It can't be both ways and Bohl is clearly positioned better within conference than Glenn was REGARDLESS of reason.

2) Year end ranking of opponent WITHIN year is the best relative metric for all teams on the schedule. If Bohl rarely beats teams in the 60-70+ range, then logic dictates the more of those teams that are on the schedule the worse the record would be.

Next week if I get time, we'll see if you are right.

 

[ZapPoke]

:deadhorse1: Ok guys. 100 posts on this thread. I think we have reached the point that we are beating a dead horse.

How about this? Bohl’s Cowboys go undefeated this year and win the conference or he is history!

 

[307bball]

1) if level of investment is irrelevant, then why invest beyond the bottom of league? If level of investment is irrelevant, why is there an arms race in college football? It can't be both ways and Bohl is clearly positioned better within conference than Glenn was REGARDLESS of reason.

Level of investment is relevant. Please stop fabricating my position to make it stupid.

The top three teams from Glenn's MWC out invested everybody. I'm not considering them....If you can find numbers that showed that we way underspent compared to the bottom 6 of that eras MWC please bring that forward. My assumption is that Wyoming, CSU, UNLV, SDSU, UNM, and AFA had a similar spread of financial commitment to football back then and have all increased to today. There is enough of a sample size there to make some apples to apples comparison that is not skewed by the high spending top of Glenn's MWC or the low spending bottom of Bohl's MWC.

If I'm wrong and Joe Glenn's program had half as much or less of a football budget than the median of that group back then...I'll concede that he was hamstrung from a financial standpoint. I have no idea where to find that data though...I guess you could look at raw coaches compensation...but that does not paint the total picture of overall program budget? As I've pointed out...SDSU and CSU have definitely out invested us overall during Bohl's tenure.

2) Year end ranking of opponent WITHIN year is the best relative metric for all teams on the schedule. If Bohl rarely beats teams in the 60-70+ range, then logic dictates the more of those teams that are on the schedule the worse the record would be.

Next week if I get time, we'll see if you are right.

Am I looking at the wrong numbers? In 2003 Joe Glenn played Oklahoma St...they finished ranked number 32 for that year. I looked at the P5 programs that both coaches faced and looked at the corresponding year end Sagarin ranking of that program...is that not the right way to do that?

As I showed above...the P5 programs that Glenn played OOC are not as good as the P5 programs that Bohl played. It's a matter of degree and neither coach did any good against them so it's kind of a wash anyways.

I'm not saying that Bohl played a tougher schedule top to bottom...please ... nobody is disputing that playing BYU, TCU, and Utah every year won't depress your win/loss total. I'm just pointing out that Glenn did worse against a group of teams at the bottom of his conference that is not far, from a competitive standpoint, from the version of those teams that Bohl is playing. Is that so controversial?

If you are downgrading Bohl because he's a dick in the media....just say so...but if you are claiming to defend Glenn because he played a murderer's row every year and did so with a dime to his opponents dollar....prove it. Glenn sucked against a group of teams that we as Wyoming fans expect to do better against....Bohl maintained the ability to beat that group for a few years beyond what Glenn could. That is all...Just...stop making up what I'm saying.

 

[307bball]

:deadhorse1: Ok guys. 100 posts on this thread. I think we have reached the point that we are beating a dead horse.

How about this? Bohl’s Cowboys go undefeated this year and win the conference or he is history!

Unfortunately....I think if he get's to .500 in conference his seat won't even be warm.

And as far as dead horses go...I'm not even sure Ragtime is reading what I'm writing...your probably right that it's a waste of time.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. All your averages and such are bs. It's entirely possible for lower level mwc team to have a good year. It's just so simple. How many teams with a pulse were on the schedule each year? We'll find out.

Glenn's resources relative to the entire MWC is relevant because that's who he played. You can't just throw out the top 3 to support your argument.

 

[307bball]

I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand. All your averages and such are bs. It's entirely possible for lower level mwc team to have a good year. It's just so simple. How many teams with a pulse were on the schedule each year? We'll find out.

This analysis has been done and not by me...Glenn played, overall, a tougher schedule.

All I did was compare the P5 schools for each since you brought them up as "auto-losses" for both...which they generally were. And guess what? In the years that they played them...NOT AVERAGES...Bohl had a better group of OOC P5 teams. (the averages tell the same story though....shocking, I know)

Evidently it is impermissible to look at the average finish in Sagarin Rankings over a period of years...I never got the memo.

Here is the raw data on a per year basis sorted by Sagarin finish from the year we played them. The last number is the year we played them.

27 San Diego State Bohl 16
27 San Diego State Bohl 16
29 Air Force Bohl 19
40 Air Force Bohl 21
43 New Mexico Glenn 04
44 Colorado State Glenn 03
45 San Diego State Bohl 15
49 New Mexico Glenn 03
49 Air Force Glenn 07
51 San Diego State Bohl 19
53 Air Force Bohl 16
53 Air Force Bohl 17
54 Air Force Glenn 03
56 Air Force Glenn 08
58 New Mexico Glenn 07
63 San Diego State Glenn 05
65 UNLV Glenn 03
65 Colorado State Bohl 14
70 San Diego State Glenn 03
71 Colorado State Glenn 05
72 Air Force Glenn 04
72 Colorado State Bohl 16
72 Colorado State Bohl 17
73 Colorado State Glenn 08
73 Air Force Bohl 15
75 New Mexico Glenn 05
75 Air Force Bohl 14
76 Air Force Glenn 05
76 New Mexico Bohl 16
76 New Mexico Bohl 17
77 Air Force Bohl 18
78 Colorado State Glenn 04
79 Air Force Glenn 06
81 San Diego State Glenn 04
83 New Mexico Glenn 06
84 New Mexico Glenn 08
89 San Diego State Glenn 07
91 Colorado State Glenn 07
93 Colorado State Bohl 15
94 UNLV Glenn 08
95 Colorado State Glenn 06
103 Colorado State Bohl 19
106 Colorado State Bohl 21
107 New Mexico Bohl 15
109 New Mexico Bohl 20
110 UNLV Glenn 04
110 Colorado State Bohl 20
114 San Diego State Glenn 06
120 UNLV Glenn 07
122 Colorado State Bohl 18
123 UNLV Bohl 15
127 UNLV Bohl 19
128 UNLV Glenn 05
128 UNLV Glenn 06
128 New Mexico Bohl 18
132 New Mexico Bohl 14
136 San Diego State Glenn 08
142 UNLV Bohl 20
145 UNLV Bohl 16
151 New Mexico Bohl 21
157 New Mexico Bohl 19

Personally I find the averages much clearer, but....This list doesn't convice me that those teams were firmly better or worse in either era....How ever you want to slice it...those are not teams I give Glenn or Bohl leeway for losing to...do you?

Glenn's resources relative to the entire MWC is relevant because that's who he played. You can't just throw out the top 3 to support your argument.

If I understand your position here...you are just wrong...a college football teams level of investment relative to an opponent is only relevant to that opponent. Wyoming played Texas and Nebraska in the past...they way outspend us but that does not matter when we play teams that spend similarly to us. I'm guessing our football budget in relation to New Mexico's is roughly about what has always been...that is what is relevant...same with UNLV, and AFA. I think SDSU and CSU have actually increased in relation to us though...they built new stadiums after all.

I'm not trying to "throw out" the top 3...I'm trying to compare like vs like. The bottom investing teams of the current MWC is not relevant here either.

 

[307bball]

Ragtime...what if the MWC absorbed the entire Big Sky conference?...is that relevant to our spending vs Boise? or UNM? I maintain it is not....yes we would have a budget that looks better in relation to the conference as a whole but in relation to the teams that we care about ... no change.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Like I said, when I get time I'll break down each team by year. If in a given year Glenn played 6 teams in the top 60 or 70 then that would be auto losses for each. Then 4 teams in 70-100, those would be 50-50 or whatever the data says.

There are 12 teams on the schedule. The number of those in a given year that are top 60-70 in that year are likely to beat Bohl or Glenn that year. It's just not that hard. Bohl lucked out last year with an incredibly weak schedule.

Of course budget relative to conference peers matters. If we absorbed the big sky, we better damn sure be finishing ahead of them and likely below the teams spending more with obvious exceptions.

Back to the simple point. Both Bohl and Glenn's success depends on how many good or bad teams are on the schedule and Glenn was bottom (guessing but will look it up) half of league in budget while Bohl is top 1/3rd (again guessing).

 

[Outlaw Arthur Morgan]

:deadhorse1: Ok guys. 100 posts on this thread. I think we have reached the point that we are beating a dead horse.

How about this? Bohl’s Cowboys go undefeated this year and win the conference or he is history!

Unfortunately....I think if he get's to .500 in conference his seat won't even be warm.

And as far as dead horses go...I'm not even sure Ragtime is reading what I'm writing...your probably right that it's a waste of time.

The sad part is - i bet we could get to .500 in the season - losing by a total of 18 points (eg lose by 3 points a game). And it would be absolutely worse than losing by 50 points a game. Even worse, a year where the defense puts more points on the board than the offense - and the games fail to get to double digits.

If there is one thing Bohl can do, its make every painstaking inch on the field count.

 

[307bball]

Like I said, when I get time I'll break down each team by year. If in a given year Glenn played 6 teams in the top 60 or 70 then that would be auto losses for each. Then 4 teams in 70-100, those would be 50-50 or whatever the data says.

There are 12 teams on the schedule. The number of those in a given year that are top 60-70 in that year are likely to beat Bohl or Glenn that year. It's just not that hard. Bohl lucked out last year with an incredibly weak schedule.

Of course budget relative to conference peers matters. If we absorbed the big sky, we better damn sure be finishing ahead of them and likely below the teams spending more with obvious exceptions.

Back to the simple point. Both Bohl and Glenn's success depends on how many good or bad teams are on the schedule and Glenn was bottom (guessing but will look it up) half of league in budget while Bohl is top 1/3rd (again guessing).

Ragtime...again, thx for the discussion. I feel like this has strayed into some bad-faith argument territory here and I don't like that. I respect your fan-dom and I'm sure I have made some calculation errors you will only be too happy to point out.

I think we all feel like after the Covid year and last year that Bohl's welcome is wearing thin. Despite your claims that it's not that hard to compare coaches between eras...I don't think it's trivial. I like Glenn...He just was not that good of a coach He played a tougher schedule than Bohl and it shows...but he owns a 3-13 conference record in his last two years with 5 of those losses to teams outside of the top 70. That was remarkably similar to Bohl's first two years. Glenn owns that...it was a stupendously bad finish for a guy that everybody was rooting for. Glenn did not get the shaft there...he just sucked. It's way worse to have that result in year 5 and 6 than in your first two years. I think you and I are both predicting that Bohl will get to that place though.

For Glenn...unless we were the 4th highest spending program at the time...we were definitely in the bottom half. Then we lost the top 3 and added teams that spend less with the exception of BSU. Is it the wrong approach to ask how we compare to that same group of programs between eras? Isn't our relative improvement in the conference in spending related to adding lower spending programs? can we not just remove the teams that left and the teams that were not in Glenn's MWC and compare those 6? Do Universities even report this in a way that makes comparison easy? What about Building new facilities...is that number in the budget?

If you feel compelled to find the spending numbers, that would be interesting. I feel like I've had an impacted rectum full of Sagarin ratings for now...but go for it if you want to.

Anyways...go pokes!

 

[Outlaw Arthur Morgan]

Like I said, when I get time I'll break down each team by year. If in a given year Glenn played 6 teams in the top 60 or 70 then that would be auto losses for each. Then 4 teams in 70-100, those would be 50-50 or whatever the data says.

There are 12 teams on the schedule. The number of those in a given year that are top 60-70 in that year are likely to beat Bohl or Glenn that year. It's just not that hard. Bohl lucked out last year with an incredibly weak schedule.

Of course budget relative to conference peers matters. If we absorbed the big sky, we better damn sure be finishing ahead of them and likely below the teams spending more with obvious exceptions.

Back to the simple point. Both Bohl and Glenn's success depends on how many good or bad teams are on the schedule and Glenn was bottom (guessing but will look it up) half of league in budget while Bohl is top 1/3rd (again guessing).

Ragtime...again, thx for the discussion. I feel like this has strayed into some bad-faith argument territory here and I don't like that. I respect your fan-dom and I'm sure I have made some calculation errors you will only be too happy to point out.

I think we all feel like after the Covid year and last year that Bohl's welcome is wearing thin. Despite your claims that it's not that hard to compare coaches between eras...I don't think it's trivial. I like Glenn...He just was not that good of a coach He played a tougher schedule than Bohl and it shows...but he owns a 3-13 conference record in his last two years with 5 of those losses to teams outside of the top 70. That was remarkably similar to Bohl's first two years. Glenn owns that...it was a stupendously bad finish for a guy that everybody was rooting for. Glenn did not get the shaft there...he just sucked. It's way worse to have that result in year 5 and 6 than in your first two years. I think you and I are both predicting that Bohl will get to that place though.

For Glenn...unless we were the 4th highest spending program at the time...we were definitely in the bottom half. Then we lost the top 3 and added teams that spend less with the exception of BSU. Is it the wrong approach to ask how we compare to that same group of programs between eras? Isn't our relative improvement in the conference in spending related to adding lower spending programs? can we not just remove the teams that left and the teams that were not in Glenn's MWC and compare those 6? Do Universities even report this in a way that makes comparison easy? What about Building new facilities...is that number in the budget?

If you feel compelled to find the spending numbers, that would be interesting. I feel like I've had an impacted rectum full of Sagarin ratings for now...but go for it if you want to.

Anyways...go pokes!

Hey 307. I hate to interupt, but I do have to disagree with Glenn being a bad coach. I think he was a great coach. If you could load up some talent under him, he would over-achieve (IMHO).

I was never a fan of him not wearing the headset in the games, but I think with good talent, he would get the most out of his players.

I don't think he was well rounded. Its probably safe to argue that he didn't have the resources that our coaches since 2008 have, but I certainly don't think he was great at finding great players, or finding players that could fit his system and developing them.

If Glenn could have figured that portion out, he probably would have been very successful here.

Bohl, IMHO, has a well rounded system in place. I joke that every inch on the field counts with him, and it likely does - and you rarely see us get blown out by an opponent (not named UNM /facepalm). Glenn would probably take some risks and see the point margin separate significantly.

Ragtime has good points. But I think the game has changed pretty significantly from now and when Glenn was coaching. It's still football, but we now have training wheels on. And its probably for the better.

Think about this - take the 2016 team and pin them up against say the 1968 team. I bet the 2016 team is more talented, but I bet the 1968 team wins. Why? Far more injuries. Much more pain inflicted.

If I remember right, the US government stepped in early 20th century and almost outlawed football - and the forward pass was invented as a result. They had far inferior equipment back then and just beat the hell out of each other.

Does anyone remember the Dirty Dobler? Or the NFL body bag game in the early 90's? The game has changed significantly since then. Many of those guys struggle to remember their own name now. The game has changed significantly over the last 20 years - and significantly before that. I struggle to see how numbers between then and now can be compared.

 

[307bball]

Hey 307. I hate to interupt, but I do have to disagree with Glenn being a bad coach. I think he was a great coach. If you could load up some talent under him, he would over-achieve (IMHO).

I was never a fan of him not wearing the headset in the games, but I think with good talent, he would get the most out of his players.

I don't think he was well rounded. Its probably safe to argue that he didn't have the resources that our coaches since 2008 have, but I certainly don't think he was great at finding great players, or finding players that could fit his system and developing them.

If Glenn could have figured that portion out, he probably would have been very successful here.

Bohl, IMHO, has a well rounded system in place. I joke that every inch on the field counts with him, and it likely does - and you rarely see us get blown out by an opponent (not named UNM /facepalm). Glenn would probably take some risks and see the point margin separate significantly.

Ragtime has good points. But I think the game has changed pretty significantly from now and when Glenn was coaching. It's still football, but we now have training wheels on. And its probably for the better.

Think about this - take the 2016 team and pin them up against say the 1968 team. I bet the 2016 team is more talented, but I bet the 1968 team wins. Why? Far more injuries. Much more pain inflicted.

If I remember right, the US government stepped in early 20th century and almost outlawed football - and the forward pass was invented as a result. They had far inferior equipment back then and just beat the hell out of each other.

Does anyone remember the Dirty Dobler? Or the NFL body bag game in the early 90's? The game has changed significantly since then. Many of those guys struggle to remember their own name now. The game has changed significantly over the last 20 years - and significantly before that. I struggle to see how numbers between then and now can be compared.

Fair enough...saying Glenn sucks is overkill. Is it fair to say his team the last two years sucked? I can't get there calling Glenn a great coach. As far as talent...that gets back to how college coaches are evaluated. The best x's and o's guy that can't develop or recruit talent is not a good coach.

Your absolutely correct to notice the way it has changed over the years making it harder to evaluate relative ability over the eras.

 

[Outlaw Arthur Morgan]

Hey 307. I hate to interupt, but I do have to disagree with Glenn being a bad coach. I think he was a great coach. If you could load up some talent under him, he would over-achieve (IMHO).

I was never a fan of him not wearing the headset in the games, but I think with good talent, he would get the most out of his players.

I don't think he was well rounded. Its probably safe to argue that he didn't have the resources that our coaches since 2008 have, but I certainly don't think he was great at finding great players, or finding players that could fit his system and developing them.

If Glenn could have figured that portion out, he probably would have been very successful here.

Bohl, IMHO, has a well rounded system in place. I joke that every inch on the field counts with him, and it likely does - and you rarely see us get blown out by an opponent (not named UNM /facepalm). Glenn would probably take some risks and see the point margin separate significantly.

Ragtime has good points. But I think the game has changed pretty significantly from now and when Glenn was coaching. It's still football, but we now have training wheels on. And its probably for the better.

Think about this - take the 2016 team and pin them up against say the 1968 team. I bet the 2016 team is more talented, but I bet the 1968 team wins. Why? Far more injuries. Much more pain inflicted.

If I remember right, the US government stepped in early 20th century and almost outlawed football - and the forward pass was invented as a result. They had far inferior equipment back then and just beat the hell out of each other.

Does anyone remember the Dirty Dobler? Or the NFL body bag game in the early 90's? The game has changed significantly since then. Many of those guys struggle to remember their own name now. The game has changed significantly over the last 20 years - and significantly before that. I struggle to see how numbers between then and now can be compared.

Fair enough...saying Glenn sucks is overkill. Is it fair to say his team the last two years sucked? I can't get there calling Glenn a great coach. As far as talent...that gets back to how college coaches are evaluated. The best x's and o's guy that can't develop or recruit talent is not a good coach.

Your absolutely correct to notice the way it has changed over the years making it harder to evaluate relative ability over the eras.

Yeah those last two years were pretty rough. Can't argue that. I don't think he had what was needed to flip that ship around. Then again, look at his last year or two coaching at Jackrabbit state. He's a tough coach to evaluate.

At least in 2007 he still had a pretty solid defense to hang his hat on. That quickly disappeared in 2008.

I don't think Bohl is going anywhere anytime soon. From what I can tell, he is hell bent on a conference championship or getting fired. I think you'll see him stop coaching after one of the two happen.

Its going to be a long journey either way.

 

[stymeman]

I'll say it again...22, it's Year 9, get er done the talking is enough im ready for a MWC title

 

[ragtimejoe1]

When I get time, I'll do a record, opponent strength, etc. Here's football expenditures in millions:
Glenn (2008) Dead last in football spending in MWC:
Wyoming 5.4
Air Force 5.5
New Mexico 6.2
Conference median 6.5
UNLV 6.5
TCU 8 (assumption...private school)
BYU 8 (assumption...private school)
San Diego State 8.2
Colorado State 8.6 (man these guys are train wrecks)
Utah  8.9

Bohl (2020) 7th in conference spending
fsu* 2019 6.3
sjsu 10.3
New Mexico 10.6
unr 10.6
Air Force 10.9
Wyoming 12.4
UNLV 12.9
Conference median 13.2
hi 13.5
usu 13.5
San Diego State 16.9
bsu 19.2
Colorado State 26.6

Percent Increase in Budget from 2008 to 2020: WYO 5th in increased expenditures
hi 42
New Mexico 71
Air Force 98
UNLV 98
Conference median 103
San Diego State 106
unr 116
fsu* 2019 117
Wyoming 130
sjsu 134
bsu 159
Colorado State 209
usu 265

Glenn 2 seasons (counting opening in Fall 07) in IPF and 1 recruiting class that was able to see the IPF.
Bohl had all seasons in IPF as well as HAPC since 2018.

I guess it is up to individual interpretation but both coaches look like they are finishing about where their budgets are i.e. not a nickel's worth of difference when accounting for resources spent. Next up will be opponents by year.

 

[LawPoke]

Those Who Stay Will Be...

Old and Gray Before WYO wins another Championship

I hope none of the guys that stuck around with Bohl when he got here aren't banking on the ring he promised.

Maybe I need to revisit the sign in the IPF...perhaps I missed the small print:

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions*



*Of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

 

[McPeachy]

Those Who Stay Will Be...

Old and Gray Before WYO wins another Championship

I hope none of the guys that stuck around with Bohl when he got here aren't banking on the ring he promised.

Maybe I need to revisit the sign in the IPF...perhaps I missed the small print:

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions*



*Of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

Yes, that is correct. There is small print involved...

Take a look here => https://wyonation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23190

 

[LawPoke]

Those Who Stay Will Be...

Old and Gray Before WYO wins another Championship

I hope none of the guys that stuck around with Bohl when he got here aren't banking on the ring he promised.

Maybe I need to revisit the sign in the IPF...perhaps I missed the small print:

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions*



*Of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

Yes, that is correct. There is small print involved...

Take a look here => https://wyonation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23190

Incredibly frustrating.

 

[McPeachy]

Those Who Stay Will Be...

Old and Gray Before WYO wins another Championship

I hope none of the guys that stuck around with Bohl when he got here aren't banking on the ring he promised.

Maybe I need to revisit the sign in the IPF...perhaps I missed the small print:

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions*



*Of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

Yes, that is correct. There is small print involved...

Take a look here => https://wyonation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23190

Incredibly frustrating.

Agreed. To the point that I have very low expectations, and am not going to lose sleep over the 2022 season. First time ever for me.

 

[LawPoke]

Those Who Stay Will Be...

Old and Gray Before WYO wins another Championship

I hope none of the guys that stuck around with Bohl when he got here aren't banking on the ring he promised.

Maybe I need to revisit the sign in the IPF...perhaps I missed the small print:

Those Who Stay Will Be Champions*



*Of the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

Yes, that is correct. There is small print involved...

Take a look here => https://wyonation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23190

Incredibly frustrating.

Agreed. To the point that I have very low expectations, and am not going to lose sleep over the 2022 season. First time ever for me.

Me too. In the past, I would have already bought tickets to the Illinois game and started into tailgate menu prep. This year, I plan to be relaxing at the cabin. Beyond being mostly losing football, it is incredibly BORING and immensely FRUSTRATING football. I'll invest my time and energy in basketball where we actually see innovation, excitement and new thinking. Apart from winning, it is exciting and interesting to watch Linder and his team and staff work.