Bohl ranks 6th..

[ragtimejoe1]

I'll try to be as specific as possible. I'm asking if you would feel differently going .500 over 7 years in the MWC (as Bohl has done)....vs going .500 in a significantly stronger or weaker conference. In all cases....Wyoming would be a member of that conference. In all of those cases there are no conference championships and only middling bowl appearances (relative to whatever bowl games that conference would have). I don't really see a difference there. I know plenty of people who root for perennial .500 teams from big time conferences and also from the ranks of the FCS....none of them try and downgrade a wining season by pointing out that the "strength of the conference" is down and none of them feel any better during a losing stretch by pointing out that "oh..the conference is just too tough right now". Also...why would expectations be different depending on the conference we were in?....The goal is to win your conference....regardless....I don't think any SEC schools finish in the bottom half and go around congratulating each other for being in the best conference.

I think I see a situation here where maybe you are trying to get a sense of like..."greatest Wyoming team ever"....or "greatest Wyoming Coach ever". In that case then all your focus on how strong the opponents are makes more sense.

Take WI, wins against Illinois st, nmsu, Northwestern, Purdue, Maryland, NE, and OK State in guaranteed rate bowl or ok state with wins against cmu, AZ state, ark pb, Baylor, Tech, TX, and Iowa State (loss to WI in bowl), compared with wins against tulsa, northern Co, af, NM, usu, HI, csu, and loss to Ohio in az bowl.

Umm, yeah. I'd feel better about the former as well as be more excited for the home slate of games. I'm not sure why that's surprising to you.

 

[ELKMT]

Dana Dimel is probably better than Bohl. His team shit the bed in 1998 and should have had a share of the title.

 

[307bball]

I'll try to be as specific as possible. I'm asking if you would feel differently going .500 over 7 years in the MWC (as Bohl has done)....vs going .500 in a significantly stronger or weaker conference. In all cases....Wyoming would be a member of that conference. In all of those cases there are no conference championships and only middling bowl appearances (relative to whatever bowl games that conference would have). I don't really see a difference there. I know plenty of people who root for perennial .500 teams from big time conferences and also from the ranks of the FCS....none of them try and downgrade a wining season by pointing out that the "strength of the conference" is down and none of them feel any better during a losing stretch by pointing out that "oh..the conference is just too tough right now". Also...why would expectations be different depending on the conference we were in?....The goal is to win your conference....regardless....I don't think any SEC schools finish in the bottom half and go around congratulating each other for being in the best conference.

I think I see a situation here where maybe you are trying to get a sense of like..."greatest Wyoming team ever"....or "greatest Wyoming Coach ever". In that case then all your focus on how strong the opponents are makes more sense.

Take WI, wins against Illinois st, nmsu, Northwestern, Purdue, Maryland, NE, and OK State in guaranteed rate bowl or ok state with wins against cmu, AZ state, ark pb, Baylor, Tech, TX, and Iowa State (loss to WI in bowl), compared with wins against tulsa, northern Co, af, NM, usu, HI, csu, and loss to Ohio in az bowl.

Umm, yeah. I'd feel better about the former as well as be more excited for the home slate of games. I'm not sure why that's surprising to you.

How is this different than just wanting to be in a power conference?... If you are in the big ten and you go .500 you get a better bowl than being .500 in the mwc..I get that. I'm not comparinging that. The best conference bowls are better than the less good conference bowls. Wyoming doess not have access to those bowls and no matter how many games Bohl wins we aren't going to be in them.

I'm struggling to find ways to describe this. The .500 team from the sec doesn't feel any better just because they play in a better conference than everybody else.... That is just reality

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Take WI, wins against Illinois st, nmsu, Northwestern, Purdue, Maryland, NE, and OK State in guaranteed rate bowl or ok state with wins against cmu, AZ state, ark pb, Baylor, Tech, TX, and Iowa State (loss to WI in bowl), compared with wins against tulsa, northern Co, af, NM, usu, HI, csu, and loss to Ohio in az bowl.

Umm, yeah. I'd feel better about the former as well as be more excited for the home slate of games. I'm not sure why that's surprising to you.

How is this different than just wanting to be in a power conference?... If you are in the big ten and you go .500 you get a better bowl than being .500 in the mwc..I get that. I'm not comparinging that. The best conference bowls are better than the less good conference bowls. Wyoming doess not have access to those bowls and no matter how many games Bohl wins we aren't going to be in them.

I'm struggling to find ways to describe this. The .500 team from the sec doesn't feel any better just because they play in a better conference than everybody else.... That is just reality

Let's put it this way. 3 mwc teams are t25, 3 more are top 40. The ooc is 3 top 30 teams. Going .500 against that means more to me than going .500 against 1 or 2 top 35 teams and the rest bottom 40.

The coach going .500 against the latter impresses me less than the coach going .500 against the former.

I'm surprised you're struggling with this.

 

[307bball]

How is this different than just wanting to be in a power conference?... If you are in the big ten and you go .500 you get a better bowl than being .500 in the mwc..I get that. I'm not comparinging that. The best conference bowls are better than the less good conference bowls. Wyoming doess not have access to those bowls and no matter how many games Bohl wins we aren't going to be in them.

I'm struggling to find ways to describe this. The .500 team from the sec doesn't feel any better just because they play in a better conference than everybody else.... That is just reality

Let's put it this way. 3 mwc teams are t25, 3 more are top 40. The ooc is 3 top 30 teams. Going .500 against that means more to me than going .500 against 1 or 2 top 35 teams and the rest bottom 40.

The coach going .500 against the latter impresses me less than the coach going .500 against the former.

I'm surprised you're struggling with this.

I do understand what your saying and have agreed that the .500 sec team is better than the .500 mwc team. I think my fundamental issue is the thought that it is somehow more impressive to do it in the sec or the big 10... Those teams are better top to bottom but they also have access to resources that MW schools can only dream of.... That balances it out. It feels like you keep changing the parameters to just a version of "who is better".

When it comes to just degree of difficulty... It is just as hard to go .500 in the big sky conference for a big sky team as it is to go.500 in the SEC for an SEC team. Now... If A Big Sky team were to go .500 in the SEC... That would truly be impressive.

I will grant you that more people care about the SEC or Big10 as well.... If that is all that matters.... Why cheer for any non P5 school? After all, the big guys are always better right? It's not a black mark to play in a smaller conference or at a lower level. The goal is to dominate your peers, which in the case of college football, is your conference.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Let's put it this way. 3 mwc teams are t25, 3 more are top 40. The ooc is 3 top 30 teams. Going .500 against that means more to me than going .500 against 1 or 2 top 35 teams and the rest bottom 40.

The coach going .500 against the latter impresses me less than the coach going .500 against the former.

I'm surprised you're struggling with this.

I do understand what your saying and have agreed that the .500 sec team is better than the .500 mwc team. I think my fundamental issue is the thought that it is somehow more impressive to do it in the sec or the big 10... Those teams are better top to bottom but they also have access to resources that MW schools can only dream of.... That balances it out. It feels like you keep changing the parameters to just a version of "who is better".

When it comes to just degree of difficulty... It is just as hard to go .500 in the big sky conference for a big sky team as it is to go.500 in the SEC for an SEC team. Now... If A Big Sky team were to go .500 in the SEC... That would truly be impressive.

I will grant you that more people care about the SEC or Big10 as well.... If that is all that matters.... Why cheer for any non P5 school? After all, the big guys are always better right? It's not a black mark to play in a smaller conference or at a lower level. The goal is to dominate your peers, which in the case of college football, is your conference.

You get hung up on weird s h I t. It's simple, the stronger the conference the harder it is to get 6 or 7 wins. Bohl is the 6th best coach in the 3rd ranked g5 conference. At one time, the MWC was unequivocally the best. It is now, dilapidated.

This just isn't hard.

 

[307bball]

I do understand what your saying and have agreed that the .500 sec team is better than the .500 mwc team. I think my fundamental issue is the thought that it is somehow more impressive to do it in the sec or the big 10... Those teams are better top to bottom but they also have access to resources that MW schools can only dream of.... That balances it out. It feels like you keep changing the parameters to just a version of "who is better".

When it comes to just degree of difficulty... It is just as hard to go .500 in the big sky conference for a big sky team as it is to go.500 in the SEC for an SEC team. Now... If A Big Sky team were to go .500 in the SEC... That would truly be impressive.

I will grant you that more people care about the SEC or Big10 as well.... If that is all that matters.... Why cheer for any non P5 school? After all, the big guys are always better right? It's not a black mark to play in a smaller conference or at a lower level. The goal is to dominate your peers, which in the case of college football, is your conference.

You get hung up on weird s h I t. It's simple, the stronger the conference the harder it is to get 6 or 7 wins. Bohl is the 6th best coach in the 3rd ranked g5 conference. At one time, the MWC was unequivocally the best. It is now, dilapidated.

This just isn't hard.

Well...finally got to the core of the misunderstanding, you are just saying things that aren't true....If you are a member of this "stronger" conference....are you not also "stronger"?...The only way that is true if you modify that statement to say " the stronger the conference the harder it would be for <insert specific team here> to get 6 or 7 wins." Like if I could just wave a wand and make the entire conference better next year except for Air Force...it would be harder for them to win....but if the entire conference got better...it is no more difficult to any team within this "upgraded" conference to get to any specific win threshold.

In the past the difference between the "strong" conferences and the "not-so-strong" conferences existed but it has gotten to be extremely wide to the point that the actual competitive difference between top-50ish programs (P5 in general) and everybody else is getting out of hand. Wyoming is in a conference with programs sort of roughly in thier ballpark....That has largely been the case. Even in the years you call the MWC "unequivically the best" is false.

Conference SRS and SOS rankings:
2002, 8th, 7th
2003, 7th, 7th
2004, 6th, 6th
2005, 8th, 8th
2006, 7th, 8th
2007, 7th, 7th
2008, 7th, 7th
2009, 7th, 7th
2010, 9th, 6th
2011, 8th, 10th
2012, 10th, 11th

I certainly don't see the "unequivocally" best conference there.


If you could show me the example where a .500 or below team talks about how "tough" the conference is to make themselves feel better...well...that would be a first. That conversation is completely the purview of low-IQ fans trying to upgrade their mediocre team or downgrade a rival.

 

[307bball]

You get hung up on weird s h I t. It's simple, the stronger the conference the harder it is to get 6 or 7 wins. Bohl is the 6th best coach in the 3rd ranked g5 conference. At one time, the MWC was unequivocally the best. It is now, dilapidated.

This just isn't hard.

Well...finally got to the core of the misunderstanding, you are just saying things that aren't true....If you are a member of this "stronger" conference....are you not also "stronger"?...The only way that is true if you modify that statement to say " the stronger the conference the harder it would be for <insert specific team here> to get 6 or 7 wins." Like if I could just wave a wand and make the entire conference better next year except for Air Force...it would be harder for them to win....but if the entire conference got better...it is no more difficult to any team within this "upgraded" conference to get to any specific win threshold.

In the past the difference between the "strong" conferences and the "not-so-strong" conferences existed but it has gotten to be extremely wide to the point that the actual competitive difference between top-50ish programs (P5 in general) and everybody else is getting out of hand. Wyoming is in a conference with programs sort of roughly in thier ballpark....That has largely been the case. Even in the years you call the MWC "unequivically the best" is false.

Conference SRS and SOS rankings:
2002, 8th, 7th
2003, 7th, 7th
2004, 6th, 6th
2005, 8th, 8th
2006, 7th, 8th
2007, 7th, 7th
2008, 7th, 7th
2009, 7th, 7th
2010, 9th, 6th
2011, 8th, 10th
2012, 10th, 11th

I certainly don't see the "unequivocally" best conference there.


If you could show me the example where a .500 or below team talks about how "tough" the conference is to make themselves feel better...well...that would be a first. That conversation is completely the purview of low-IQ fans trying to upgrade their mediocre team or downgrade a rival.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

You get hung up on weird s h I t. It's simple, the stronger the conference the harder it is to get 6 or 7 wins. Bohl is the 6th best coach in the 3rd ranked g5 conference. At one time, the MWC was unequivocally the best. It is now, dilapidated.

This just isn't hard.

Well...finally got to the core of the misunderstanding, you are just saying things that aren't true....If you are a member of this "stronger" conference....are you not also "stronger"?...The only way that is true if you modify that statement to say " the stronger the conference the harder it would be for <insert specific team here> to get 6 or 7 wins." Like if I could just wave a wand and make the entire conference better next year except for Air Force...it would be harder for them to win....but if the entire conference got better...it is no more difficult to any team within this "upgraded" conference to get to any specific win threshold.

In the past the difference between the "strong" conferences and the "not-so-strong" conferences existed but it has gotten to be extremely wide to the point that the actual competitive difference between top-50ish programs (P5 in general) and everybody else is getting out of hand. Wyoming is in a conference with programs sort of roughly in thier ballpark....That has largely been the case. Even in the years you call the MWC "unequivically the best" is false.

Conference SRS and SOS rankings:
2002, 8th, 7th
2003, 7th, 7th
2004, 6th, 6th
2005, 8th, 8th
2006, 7th, 8th
2007, 7th, 7th
2008, 7th, 7th
2009, 7th, 7th
2010, 9th, 6th
2011, 8th, 10th
2012, 10th, 11th

I certainly don't see the "unequivocally" best conference there.


If you could show me the example where a .500 or below team talks about how "tough" the conference is to make themselves feel better...well...that would be a first. That conversation is completely the purview of low-IQ fans trying to upgrade their mediocre team or downgrade a rival.

So you are saying the MWC with byu, Utah, and TCU was the same as today? rly:

MWC was unequivocally the best G5 conference. The Big East was still P6. We were closer to the Big East than the next G5 (or whatever it was called then).

Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. If next year, the MWC had 3 top 25 teams, 3 more in the top 40, and TX , Tech, and App State all end up in the T25 and Bohl goes to 6 or 7 wins, then, yeah, I think that will mean more than the 6 or 7 wins last year.

Again....not that hard.

 

[307bball]

Well...finally got to the core of the misunderstanding, you are just saying things that aren't true....If you are a member of this "stronger" conference....are you not also "stronger"?...The only way that is true if you modify that statement to say " the stronger the conference the harder it would be for <insert specific team here> to get 6 or 7 wins." Like if I could just wave a wand and make the entire conference better next year except for Air Force...it would be harder for them to win....but if the entire conference got better...it is no more difficult to any team within this "upgraded" conference to get to any specific win threshold.

In the past the difference between the "strong" conferences and the "not-so-strong" conferences existed but it has gotten to be extremely wide to the point that the actual competitive difference between top-50ish programs (P5 in general) and everybody else is getting out of hand. Wyoming is in a conference with programs sort of roughly in thier ballpark....That has largely been the case. Even in the years you call the MWC "unequivically the best" is false.

Conference SRS and SOS rankings:
2002, 8th, 7th
2003, 7th, 7th
2004, 6th, 6th
2005, 8th, 8th
2006, 7th, 8th
2007, 7th, 7th
2008, 7th, 7th
2009, 7th, 7th
2010, 9th, 6th
2011, 8th, 10th
2012, 10th, 11th

I certainly don't see the "unequivocally" best conference there.


If you could show me the example where a .500 or below team talks about how "tough" the conference is to make themselves feel better...well...that would be a first. That conversation is completely the purview of low-IQ fans trying to upgrade their mediocre team or downgrade a rival.

So you are saying the MWC with byu, Utah, and TCU was the same as today? rly:

MWC was unequivocally the best G5 conference. The Big East was still P6. We were closer to the Big East than the next G5 (or whatever it was called then).

Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. If next year, the MWC had 3 top 25 teams, 3 more in the top 40, and TX , Tech, and App State all end up in the T25 and Bohl goes to 6 or 7 wins, then, yeah, I think that will mean more than the 6 or 7 wins last year.

Again....not that hard.

It's obvious you have no interest in a good faith discussion. You called the past MWC "unequivocally the best". ... At no point did I equate the current MW to any other era.... In fact my position is that is not a fruitful way to decide if a particular coach is any good. It's obvious that you place a high value on playing in a conference with highly ranked teams in it. I too want Wyoming to be in a better conference than a weaker conference, but that takes a decided back seat to actually being good..... In whatever conference.

During the best stretch the MW ever achieved (probably 07-10), Wyoming won 8 total conference games over four seasons. Those Wyoming teams played some bad football and it didn't matter to fans (except possibly you) that the top three teams in the conference were very good. That era Wyoming team would have been bad in any era.

Anyways... I'm frustrated with the somewhat low ceiling of the Bohl era.... There are plenty of fair and true criticisms of CB that you could engage in but you seem bent on downgrading anything he does based based on some spurious claims of how good the conference is....

 

[ragtimejoe1]

You get hung up on weird s h I t. It's simple, the stronger the conference the harder it is to get 6 or 7 wins. Bohl is the 6th best coach in the 3rd ranked g5 conference. At one time, the MWC was unequivocally the best. It is now, dilapidated.

This just isn't hard.

Well...finally got to the core of the misunderstanding, you are just saying things that aren't true....If you are a member of this "stronger" conference....are you not also "stronger"?...The only way that is true if you modify that statement to say " the stronger the conference the harder it would be for <insert specific team here> to get 6 or 7 wins." Like if I could just wave a wand and make the entire conference better next year except for Air Force...it would be harder for them to win....but if the entire conference got better...it is no more difficult to any team within this "upgraded" conference to get to any specific win threshold.

In the past the difference between the "strong" conferences and the "not-so-strong" conferences existed but it has gotten to be extremely wide to the point that the actual competitive difference between top-50ish programs (P5 in general) and everybody else is getting out of hand. Wyoming is in a conference with programs sort of roughly in thier ballpark....That has largely been the case. Even in the years you call the MWC "unequivically the best" is false.

Conference SRS and SOS rankings:
2002, 8th, 7th
2003, 7th, 7th
2004, 6th, 6th
2005, 8th, 8th
2006, 7th, 8th
2007, 7th, 7th
2008, 7th, 7th
2009, 7th, 7th
2010, 9th, 6th
2011, 8th, 10th
2012, 10th, 11th

I certainly don't see the "unequivocally" best conference there.


If you could show me the example where a .500 or below team talks about how "tough" the conference is to make themselves feel better...well...that would be a first. That conversation is completely the purview of low-IQ fans trying to upgrade their mediocre team or downgrade a rival.

Also, using your same metrics and sorting the MWC by ranking by year:
Craig Bohl has coached in 6 of 10 of the worst years in the MWC
Craig Bohl has coached in 8 years in 12 of the worst years in the MWC.
Craig Bohl has 1 season in the upper half of historical rankings for the MWC.

Yeah, he's had the luxury of a MWC on training wheels. Most years, he also had the luxury of a relatively soft OOC schedule.
OOC SOS rankings:
2022 88
2021 114
2020 73
2019 95
2018 83
2017 79
2016 66
2015 122
2014 105

*Noticeable shift in this since Burman took over. I think you have to go back to 07 or 06 until you get an OOC SOS in the upper half of CFB.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

So you are saying the MWC with byu, Utah, and TCU was the same as today? rly:

MWC was unequivocally the best G5 conference. The Big East was still P6. We were closer to the Big East than the next G5 (or whatever it was called then).

Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. If next year, the MWC had 3 top 25 teams, 3 more in the top 40, and TX , Tech, and App State all end up in the T25 and Bohl goes to 6 or 7 wins, then, yeah, I think that will mean more than the 6 or 7 wins last year.

Again....not that hard.

It's obvious you have no interest in a good faith discussion. You called the past MWC "unequivocally the best". ... At no point did I equate the current MW to any other era.... In fact my position is that is not a fruitful way to decide if a particular coach is any good. It's obvious that you place a high value on playing in a conference with highly ranked teams in it. I too want Wyoming to be in a better conference than a weaker conference, but that takes a decided back seat to actually being good..... In whatever conference.

During the best stretch the MW ever achieved (probably 07-10), Wyoming won 8 total conference games over four seasons. Those Wyoming teams played some bad football and it didn't matter to fans (except possibly you) that the top three teams in the conference were very good. That era Wyoming team would have been bad in any era.

Anyways... I'm frustrated with the somewhat low ceiling of the Bohl era.... There are plenty of fair and true criticisms of CB that you could engage in but you seem bent on downgrading anything he does based based on some spurious claims of how good the conference is....

Unequivocally the best G5/non-AQ/or whatever you want to call it. There was a stretch where it wasn't really that close. Remember all those 7s are actually the best non-AQ/G5/whatever label you want. There were 6 Power Conferences at the time. Your data actually supports the claim.

 

[307bball]

It's obvious you have no interest in a good faith discussion. You called the past MWC "unequivocally the best". ... At no point did I equate the current MW to any other era.... In fact my position is that is not a fruitful way to decide if a particular coach is any good. It's obvious that you place a high value on playing in a conference with highly ranked teams in it. I too want Wyoming to be in a better conference than a weaker conference, but that takes a decided back seat to actually being good..... In whatever conference.

During the best stretch the MW ever achieved (probably 07-10), Wyoming won 8 total conference games over four seasons. Those Wyoming teams played some bad football and it didn't matter to fans (except possibly you) that the top three teams in the conference were very good. That era Wyoming team would have been bad in any era.

Anyways... I'm frustrated with the somewhat low ceiling of the Bohl era.... There are plenty of fair and true criticisms of CB that you could engage in but you seem bent on downgrading anything he does based based on some spurious claims of how good the conference is....

Unequivocally the best G5/non-AQ/or whatever you want to call it. There was a stretch where it wasn't really that close. Remember all those 7s are actually the best non-AQ/G5/whatever label you want. There were 6 Power Conferences at the time. Your data actually supports the claim.

If you want to revise your statement...that is fine...at least own the error in not making that clear.

You are the expert on historical strength of football conferences...I don't claim to know or care whether a particular .500 Wyoming team was better or worse than another .500 Wyoming team. .500 is not good enough to this fan no matter what conference we are in. Whatever was causing the MW to be competitively better in the conference landscape that was going on back in the late 2000-and-single-digits did not help Wyoming out at all....Those were some dark years for competitive Wyoming football and I'm not the only one that felt that...did you attend games during that stretch?...it was pretty awful.

To your point about how good the MW is...It is a minor point but the MW continues to be in the 7th through 9th range in SRS and SOS in every year after a dip into the double digits right after TCU, BYU, and Utah left. Now...the distance between say the 8th and 3rd ranked conference is probably much wider now than back then but...relative to your position in the rankings of that time....it's not a monstrous drop off.

You still never answered directly my modified question about how you feel about the conference we are in....you pointed out that SDSU's recent success was not applicable since that is Basketball...what about that era that you are so in love with? Did getting ran of the field feel better during those years since we were being out-classed by our conference mates?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If you want to revise your statement...that is fine...at least own the error in not making that clear.

There is no mistake. You just get hung up on weird s h i t. The preceding sentence (in that discussion) clearly clarifies the discussion is centered on g5.

You still never answered directly my modified question about how you feel about the conference we are in....you pointed out that SDSU's recent success was not applicable since that is Basketball...what about that era that you are so in love with? Did getting ran of the field feel better during those years since we were being out-classed by our conference mates?

Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. Winning 6 or 7 games in one of the worst conferences isn't that impressive. If the MWC in any sport is really strong (a minor step below the P12 for example), then a 6 or 7 win season has more merit. Quit getting hung up on theoretical bs about fan perception under whatever scenario. Analyzing Bohl's performance includes strength of schedule. Has nothing to do with fan perception. What about winning 7 games in really tough MWC? How would you rank that compared to winning 7 games in a dogs h i t MWC? It cuts both ways.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Did getting ran of the field feel better during those years since we were being out-classed by our conference mates?

On a side note, this perfectly sums up WYO athletics on many levels.

 

[307bball]

If you want to revise your statement...that is fine...at least own the error in not making that clear.

There is no mistake. You just get hung up on weird s h i t. The preceding sentence (in that discussion) clearly clarifies the discussion is centered on g5.

You still never answered directly my modified question about how you feel about the conference we are in....you pointed out that SDSU's recent success was not applicable since that is Basketball...what about that era that you are so in love with? Did getting ran of the field feel better during those years since we were being out-classed by our conference mates?

Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. Winning 6 or 7 games in one of the worst conferences isn't that impressive. If the MWC in any sport is really strong (a minor step below the P12 for example), then a 6 or 7 win season has more merit. Quit getting hung up on theoretical bs about fan perception under whatever scenario. Analyzing Bohl's performance includes strength of schedule. Has nothing to do with fan perception. What about winning 7 games in really tough MWC? How would you rank that compared to winning 7 games in a dogs h i t MWC? It cuts both ways.

I'm sure you knew what you meant....the error was in the lack of clarity. You have clarified ... so thank you for that.

Your statement about "theoretial bs about fan perception" is interesting. Isn't it true that you look down on Bohl's accomplishments in large part because, as you put it, of a conference on training wheels? Is that not your perception? You keep trying to sneak in the fact that SOS is lower than it was in the past....that is true but it's not salient to what I'm talking about. I acknowledge that as time goes by ... our football schedules will be further and further behind the top of college football....I don't lay that at Bohl's feet, or even Burman's necessarily. The entire non P5 is going through that. I'm trying to understand how you are so willing to hate on CB In large part because the conference is bad (how bad it actually is, is debatable, the modern MW continues to come in 7th to 9th in SRS and SOS year after year) yet you don't acknowledge any sort of affinity for a time when Wyoming was completely non-competitive and the conference was relatively stronger. That is wierd to me, but if you are a "conference" guy to some degree then it makes sense that there would be some pride in the accomplishments of TCU, Utah, and BYU of that era that would offset the misery of getting kicked around by them. I did enjoy the optics of little ole MWC teams thumping the big guys during that era but it became obvious that those teams were truly big time programs with big time investments in football and ultimately did not belong competitively with the rest of the MWC.

So, CB is tasked with winning championships in 2024...not in 2008. If he does that ... or even lets say he appears in the championship game...I'll call that a success. I will have exactly zero thoughts about the fact that the MW is not as good at the top as it was in 2008. He will have accomplished his job. Since 2016 he has not really gotten it done IMO. Has he bottomed out like everybody before him?...no .... but the job is to get to some championship games and then win some. That is the metric. That is what Bohl has been unable to do...despite all of the foundation he has built and the stability he has brought....he seems unable to get to a championship. Now that fact places him alongside of every other non-roach coach in the modern era....the only difference between him and most of the others is that he has figured out how to not bottom out for a longer period of them than the rest. For me...the comparison of Dana Dimel is probably the closest...but Dimel had the misfortune of coaching after some of the better success Wyoming has ever had so Wyoming fans were wanting a 10 win season and didn't get it. By the time we went through the Koenning disaster...we just wanted wins and it looked like Glenn would get us some but his teams couldn't ultimately get it done either. Fast forward to 2014 and the Cowboy fan expectation is at an all time low. Bohl has cleared that bar....barely.

 

[307bball]

Did getting ran of the field feel better during those years since we were being out-classed by our conference mates?

On a side note, this perfectly sums up WYO athletics on many levels.

sad....but true

 

[ragtimejoe1]

There is no mistake. You just get hung up on weird s h i t. The preceding sentence (in that discussion) clearly clarifies the discussion is centered on g5.



Again, you get hung up on weird s h i t. Winning 6 or 7 games in one of the worst conferences isn't that impressive. If the MWC in any sport is really strong (a minor step below the P12 for example), then a 6 or 7 win season has more merit. Quit getting hung up on theoretical bs about fan perception under whatever scenario. Analyzing Bohl's performance includes strength of schedule. Has nothing to do with fan perception. What about winning 7 games in really tough MWC? How would you rank that compared to winning 7 games in a dogs h i t MWC? It cuts both ways.

I'm sure you knew what you meant....the error was in the lack of clarity. You have clarified ... so thank you for that.

Your statement about "theoretial bs about fan perception" is interesting. Isn't it true that you look down on Bohl's accomplishments in large part because, as you put it, of a conference on training wheels? Is that not your perception? You keep trying to sneak in the fact that SOS is lower than it was in the past....that is true but it's not salient to what I'm talking about. I acknowledge that as time goes by ... our football schedules will be further and further behind the top of college football....I don't lay that at Bohl's feet, or even Burman's necessarily. The entire non P5 is going through that. I'm trying to understand how you are so willing to hate on CB In large part because the conference is bad (how bad it actually is, is debatable, the modern MW continues to come in 7th to 9th in SRS and SOS year after year) yet you don't acknowledge any sort of affinity for a time when Wyoming was completely non-competitive and the conference was relatively stronger. That is wierd to me, but if you are a "conference" guy to some degree then it makes sense that there would be some pride in the accomplishments of TCU, Utah, and BYU of that era that would offset the misery of getting kicked around by them. I did enjoy the optics of little ole MWC teams thumping the big guys during that era but it became obvious that those teams were truly big time programs with big time investments in football and ultimately did not belong competitively with the rest of the MWC.

So, CB is tasked with winning championships in 2024...not in 2008. If he does that ... or even lets say he appears in the championship game...I'll call that a success. I will have exactly zero thoughts about the fact that the MW is not as good at the top as it was in 2008. He will have accomplished his job. Since 2016 he has not really gotten it done IMO. Has he bottomed out like everybody before him?...no .... but the job is to get to some championship games and then win some. That is the metric. That is what Bohl has been unable to do...despite all of the foundation he has built and the stability he has brought....he seems unable to get to a championship. Now that fact places him alongside of every other non-roach coach in the modern era....the only difference between him and most of the others is that he has figured out how to not bottom out for a longer period of them than the rest. For me...the comparison of Dana Dimel is probably the closest...but Dimel had the misfortune of coaching after some of the better success Wyoming has ever had so Wyoming fans were wanting a 10 win season and didn't get it. By the time we went through the Koenning disaster...we just wanted wins and it looked like Glenn would get us some but his teams couldn't ultimately get it done either. Fast forward to 2014 and the Cowboy fan expectation is at an all time low. Bohl has cleared that bar....barely.

You really struggle with this. It just isn't that hard. Bohl's consistency is in part due to the extremely weak schedule. With a weak schedule I expect more than a tough schedule. He's the 6th best coach in a mostly dogs h I t conference. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[bladerunnr]

Here's what Wyoming has to deal with
https://www.univstats.com/compariso... West Conference,for academic year 2021-2022.

We have 1/2 to 1/3 of the enrollment of every other school in the conference. Smaller budgets, smaller campus, and far less chance to recruit good athletes - many of whom do not want to attend such a small school. UW enrollment has hardly changed in the last 40 years while other schools have doubled in size. The discussion in Fort Collins is which conference csewe will join. I doubt the MWC will exist 2 years from now. I see us in the Big Sky.

 

[307bball]

I'm sure you knew what you meant....the error was in the lack of clarity. You have clarified ... so thank you for that.

Your statement about "theoretial bs about fan perception" is interesting. Isn't it true that you look down on Bohl's accomplishments in large part because, as you put it, of a conference on training wheels? Is that not your perception? You keep trying to sneak in the fact that SOS is lower than it was in the past....that is true but it's not salient to what I'm talking about. I acknowledge that as time goes by ... our football schedules will be further and further behind the top of college football....I don't lay that at Bohl's feet, or even Burman's necessarily. The entire non P5 is going through that. I'm trying to understand how you are so willing to hate on CB In large part because the conference is bad (how bad it actually is, is debatable, the modern MW continues to come in 7th to 9th in SRS and SOS year after year) yet you don't acknowledge any sort of affinity for a time when Wyoming was completely non-competitive and the conference was relatively stronger. That is wierd to me, but if you are a "conference" guy to some degree then it makes sense that there would be some pride in the accomplishments of TCU, Utah, and BYU of that era that would offset the misery of getting kicked around by them. I did enjoy the optics of little ole MWC teams thumping the big guys during that era but it became obvious that those teams were truly big time programs with big time investments in football and ultimately did not belong competitively with the rest of the MWC.

So, CB is tasked with winning championships in 2024...not in 2008. If he does that ... or even lets say he appears in the championship game...I'll call that a success. I will have exactly zero thoughts about the fact that the MW is not as good at the top as it was in 2008. He will have accomplished his job. Since 2016 he has not really gotten it done IMO. Has he bottomed out like everybody before him?...no .... but the job is to get to some championship games and then win some. That is the metric. That is what Bohl has been unable to do...despite all of the foundation he has built and the stability he has brought....he seems unable to get to a championship. Now that fact places him alongside of every other non-roach coach in the modern era....the only difference between him and most of the others is that he has figured out how to not bottom out for a longer period of them than the rest. For me...the comparison of Dana Dimel is probably the closest...but Dimel had the misfortune of coaching after some of the better success Wyoming has ever had so Wyoming fans were wanting a 10 win season and didn't get it. By the time we went through the Koenning disaster...we just wanted wins and it looked like Glenn would get us some but his teams couldn't ultimately get it done either. Fast forward to 2014 and the Cowboy fan expectation is at an all time low. Bohl has cleared that bar....barely.

You really struggle with this. It just isn't that hard. Bohl's consistency is in part due to the extremely weak schedule. With a weak schedule I expect more than a tough schedule. He's the 6th best coach in a mostly dogs h I t conference. Do you agree or disagree?

Bohl's consistency is in part due to the extremely weak schedule.
mmmmm Nice opinion there...I disagree but I've heard crazier theories.

He's the 6th best coach in a mostly dogs h I t conference. Do you agree or disagree?

That list is basically "who has the best program the last three or so years".....I don't agree that there are 5 obviously better coaches in the MW.

And as far as the conference being Dog Doo....compared to what? the MW has floated just behind the power conferences since it's inception....the MW is battling to be the top non-power conference with CUSA, Sun Belt and AAC.....As more of the top of that group get siphoned into the power groups...that group continues to weaken but they still tend to remain in that slot. I don't know if it will com through ... I will try and post a conference SOS ranking over time to show how little has changed since 1999.

The MW has been the 7th or 8th best conference except for 6 years...three of our best conference SOS years the MW was 6th and only one of them with the dreaded big three of Utah, TCU, and BYU. It just goes to show that not much has changed...the MW is still in the top of the non power conferences and Wyoming is still struggling.