ragtimejoe1 said:
These numbers back up the claim that Bohl has it better than Glenn in terms of budget and resources. Other teams might be adding resources but they didn't have them while Bohl did.
Glenn was bottom of the barrel in his conference for everything. Bohl is upper end for salaries and facilities and middle for budget in his conference. The within conference comparison is much better than plucking out a few teams.
I'm not making the claim that Bohl has less financial support than Joe Glenn did. Your claim that Wyoming is at the upper end of the conference in facilities is some sunshine pumping nonsense though. I love me some War memorial but it is not a top half MWC facility. Charming?..Nostalgic? of couse...but it does not move the needle otherwise. The HAPC and the IPF are nice but we are not blowing anybody away with them.
ragtimejoe1 said:
I'll work on the individual team strength within season which is also a better metric than some overall average. UNM, SDSU, AF, and CSU all had bowl-eligible teams during Glenn's era. You act like these teams were [#]sh#t every year and that's not the case except for unlv.
That's a different aspect of the debate. For this, Glenn clearly had a disadvantage in terms of resources and facilities compared to HIS conference peers. Bohl is in much better shape in this regard relative to HIS peers.
The reason we don't go budget is because Burman knows we'll be bottom of the barrel. Bohl couldn't do what Glenn was asked to do either.
Waste your time if you want I guess....I don't know how many ways I can say that
in general, Glenn played tougher teams than Bohl does. It's difficult to compare since the conference changed so drastically but the P5 OOC caliber of teams that both played is one category that you can look at...Bohl played a slightly higher rated slate than Glenn did. If you compare teams that both coaches played in conference, that group was slightly higher rated than they are now. Obviously this is looking at it over some years. I've seen the numbers...If I've made a mistake...point it out, otherwise the analysis has been done.
If you are using year end sagarin rankings to determine how good a team is in any given year, it's obvious that,
overall Glenn played more top 60 programs than Bohl does. Both coaches lose to them all the time. If you suck against teams outside the top 60...that is what gets you fired. That is what Glenn's program settled into by the end. The difference is that Bohl's program started out in that place and got better. It seems like it's heading back there but I suppose there is a chance he pulls it out and maintains some sort of frustrating mediocrity.
I'm hearing you say that they are no different, in your opinion, for all the reasons that you have laid out. Fantastic, bully for you. I think Bohl is a better coach than Glenn for the reasons I have laid out. I value being competitive in the MWC and Glenn wasn't. I don't care that it was a tougher conference....I'm not asking him to dominate the Utah's or TCU's of his era...I'm asking him to have a winning record against the bottom of the MWC. Am I being unreasonable? I think not.
Whoever pointed out that the difference between Bohl and Glenn is terribly un-inspiring was spot on. I agree with that and I still think Bohl is better.
What is it that you hate so much about Bohl...is it the fact that he presides over a much richer program with more fans at games despite mediocre results? Something about this argument feels personal to me. Let it out....you'll feel better.
