Craig Bohl: Simply an illusionist?

[JimmyDimes]

Or is it that he is simply destroying the program for the simple fact that he hasn't won a game yet this season?

He destroyed the program because we currently are about a mid-level FCS team, if that. We got plastered by a mid-level FCS team. We are on track to not win an OOC game since 1989 and with the weakest OOC schedule we might have faced ever.

Even our bad teams before could handle the top end of FCS.

So yeah, he destroyed, destructed, whatever you want to call it. Now we see if it is the right approach to his building philosophy. His build at NDSU isn't even remotely close to what he has undertaken here. I trust that he can do it and should certainly be afforded 4 years at minimum, but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm that he will turn it around, either.

We are that? Or he took that over? Again. Can he control the defensive mess that you see before you? I'm not talking lack of play, I'm talking lack of depth and Extremely young? I don't think that is on Bohl. That hole was dug five years ago and progressively got worse with lack of recruiting and lack of coaching for three out of those five years.
Hence, Bohl stepped into the mess.
His recruiting classes seem pretty well planned out to try to get needs met at important areas and to try and gain much needed depth. But with as much depth and talent as we lack in a lot of areas it takes more than one or two recruiting classes to begin to bandage the wounds left over from two years ago. Like this years class, we see more linemen and LBs, things he's still recruited for in the past, but were not as big a priority as other areas at the time.

You need to realize how bad the program was that Bohl took over to be able to see what we're actually going through outside of the Wins and Losses.

I posted yesterday that the year before Bohl took over there were three linebackers on scholarship....Wacha, Malkam Muhhamed, and Jeff Lark. Two of those guys rarely saw the field. We lost one to injury, one got kicked off the team and we are left with Wacha.

That seems to be a recruiting issue with the previous staff. Anyone disagree? We can also look at the DB's and say the same thing.

 

[LanderPoke]

Or is it that he is simply destroying the program for the simple fact that he hasn't won a game yet this season?

He destroyed the program because we currently are about a mid-level FCS team, if that. We got plastered by a mid-level FCS team. We are on track to not win an OOC game since 1989 and with the weakest OOC schedule we might have faced ever.

Even our bad teams before could handle the top end of FCS.

So yeah, he destroyed, destructed, whatever you want to call it. Now we see if it is the right approach to his building philosophy. His build at NDSU isn't even remotely close to what he has undertaken here. I trust that he can do it and should certainly be afforded 4 years at minimum, but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm that he will turn it around, either.

We are that? Or he took that over? Again. Can he control the defensive mess that you see before you? I'm not talking lack of play, I'm talking lack of depth and Extremely young? I don't think that is on Bohl. That hole was dug five years ago and progressively got worse with lack of recruiting and lack of coaching for three out of those five years.
Hence, Bohl stepped into the mess.
His recruiting classes seem pretty well planned out to try to get needs met at important areas and to try and gain much needed depth. But with as much depth and talent as we lack in a lot of areas it takes more than one or two recruiting classes to begin to bandage the wounds left over from two years ago. Like this years class, we see more linemen and LBs, things he's still recruited for in the past, but were not as big a priority as other areas at the time.

You need to realize how bad the program was that Bohl took over to be able to see what we're actually going through outside of the Wins and Losses.

I posted yesterday that the year before Bohl took over there were three linebackers on scholarship....Wacha, Malkam Muhhamed, and Jeff Lark. Two of those guys rarely saw the field. We lost one to injury, one got kicked off the team and we are left with Wacha.

That seems to be a recruiting issue with the previous staff. Anyone disagree? We can also look at the DB's and say the same thing.

This. We need to give it time for Bohl's players to grow up.

 

[kansasCowboy]

No Jimmy! That's not relevant to the fact that when Bohl took over we should've become BEASTS at every position overnight! And we haven't and therefore we suck!
... I was just trying the other side on for size. It doesn't fit well.

The simple fact is this, had he committed more recruits to defense in his first two recruiting years right at this moment we would be complaining of a lackluster defense (not terrible, like we claim now).
And we would be questioning and complaining about the offense even moreso than we do now!

The point is we had SO MANY holes to fill on BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL we've been filling each up slowly. D has taken a hit and it has happened with graduation, attrition, you name it? That is not on Bohl.
Everyone would've been going psyhco had Bohl not been going after QBs on his first class based on the fact that we lost Brett, the. Thompson and were left with only Kirk. In comes three more QBs. And yet Kirk was still the guy. But that hole was filled for the future. In comes RBs because we are going to run more and we only have two quality guys Wick and May. We have ZERO TEs and FBs and we got after them. The D as bad as they are, are intact for a year, so why not get more guys that can help you quickly initiate the change in the offensive scheme?
Then we get more D players, then more D players quit, and our D takes a hit. We aren't gaining, we are less than equal to what we were comparably because we now have young talent, and no depth. Then we have OL quit, what do we see now OL and DE and LBs being recruited.
The truth is you cannot have it all at once. Each of these positions and sides of the ball have been so skewed that it will take multiple years to fill the gaps. Think about our gripes with Shyatt and lack of depth on the basketball team since he's been here? It's taken him about five years to make our depth Come back from the hit it took when all the players left from the Schroyer team. Five years! For a team of how many players? 12-15? Magnify that to 100! And there is football. You screw your depth ( hence the attrition of players leaving after Bohl came on plus graduation and a coaching staff that did not recruit very well or subpar the final two years) and you now have our bball program on the football field. It takes a lot longer to fill those voids than it does In basketball.

And so I ask yet again, is this Bohls doing? Or is it the nature of the program he inherited?

 

[cowboyz]

Glenn beat some big name teams. He had beaten every team in the conference at least once. He had his up's and down's, but hell, its sad to look at him as the bright spot of the last 15 years.

But he hasn't been the bright spot...DC has.

:lol:

Glenn pasted a Virginia team that finished 9-4 by 20 points in UW's home opener. DC lost to Cal Poly. Most talented player on this side of Jay Novacek? Yep, that was Glenn's doing, too. Koenning, strangely enough, came the closest to beating a highly ranked team (an undefeated BYU team in 2001) of anyone we've had since the late 90's. It would be really nice if ANYONE could put a scare into a good team anymore. And I'm not talking about losing by 31 points to Texas in a game we led at one point. Yeah, Texas was a pretty good team in 2009 - you want to know who the best player on the field for either team was? Tashaun Gipson, by miles. Still shows how big the discrepancy is across a full roster.

I don't even know what the point of my post was. My apologies. It sucks to suck and I'm tired of sucking. But god damn, do we suck.

2 bowls in 5 years vs 1 in 6. Getting us to two bowls alone makes DC our best coach since...what, Tiller probably? I realize that it's a tallest midget contest, but DC is that "tall midget" right now.

Well, let's get something straight. The 2009 bowl doesn't ever happen if DC doesn't inherit three future NFL players (including one who might be an All-Pro) from Glenn, not to mention about 12 other key role players. That team was, by far, DC's strongest...and a 7-6 campaign was won on the back of Glenn's own players.

As for the 2011 season, there was good reason we got absolutely demolished by Temple in the bowl game, and it's because we had beaten no one that season. The 8-win mark was inflated by wins over a number of really bad teams. Our 2011 team was the perfect example of why the NCAA's bowl system is so ridiculous - essentially being rewarded with post-season play for not being one of the worst 60 teams in the country. They had no business being in a post-season game and got clobbered consequentially by a Temple team that was decent, but hardly great.

The best team that Wyoming has fielded in the 21st century didn't even go bowling - it was Glenn's 6-6 team in 2006. But that team passed the eye-test, blowing out a Utah team that finished with a winning record (31-0 at one point in the game) and then blanking CSU 24-0, not to mention recording the only true scare of a top-10 team we've had in the 21st century (losing 17-10 to eventual Fiesta Bowl champion Boise State).

DC had more bowl appearances, better win %, slightly more wins per year, and I believe sent more players to the pros. Thats facts, not the "eye test." (You could check my last point, I didn't look anything up for that)

"Sent players to the pros" doesn't reflect the fact that Glenn was the guy who was responsible for the Gipsons, Unrein, Pro, and that entire defense minus Shamiel Gary. The basic numbers you're citing are deceptive. You need to look at the actual quality of teams and programs Glenn beat vs. Christensen. Also, keep in mind that Christensen's final couple of seasons were spent coaching in a pseudo-watered down Mountain West that didn't include BYU or Utah (and, for the final two, TCU). Finally, some of the margin of defeat in those 2005-2007 seasons: yes, there were a few dismal blowout losses, but there were several nail biters against good teams that cost UW potential bowl bids in all three of those campaigns.

Glenn wasn't a great coach, but luck was rarely on his side with untimely/inexplicable turnovers and injuries. Christensen was simply a really bad coach.

Yes, Dave was a really bad coach. And still our best since Tiller.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

Coach A beat:
-Virginia
-TCU
-Tennessee
-UCLA
-Ole Miss
-BYU
-Utah

And had a 7-point loss to the eventual undefeated Fiesta Bowl champion (Boise State).

Coach B beat:
-Fresno State

And had a 31-point loss to the eventual #2 team in the country (Texas) where Wyoming led at one point late in the first half.

As far as caliber of teams, the overall state of the product, etc., you couldn't convince me that we were closer to turning the corner with DC than with Glenn. Glenn twice had us on the verge - in 2005 and 2007 - and it all went sour on a series of inexplicable plays and some genuinely bad luck. Keep in mind that the New Mexico Glenn couldn't get past was a MUCH different animal than the doormat Christensen walked over every year...oh, wait, he lost to a winless Lobo team in 2010.

Even in the down times, we had something pretty memorable to celebrate in each of Glenn's seasons.

2003: Probably the final time Wyoming ever defeated BYU and CSU in the same season

2004: The first bowl win in decades, and a win over a UCLA team from a Big-5 conference (those are few-and-far between, and Glenn got most of them) that had several lasting NFL players.

2005: A 4-1 start and perhaps the last true "big-time" game at War Memorial Stadium (vs. TCU). Oh, and a series-sweep of an SEC opponent.

2006: The best overall Wyoming team of the 21st century. The heartbreaking losses definitely put a damper because we were left wondering what could have been, but no one will soon forget looking at a scoreboard that read "Wyoming 31, Utah 0" over a Utah team that finished with a winning record. Keep in mind we've beaten a total of 10 FBS/Division I teams since 2000 that had winning records. This was the second-most impressive. Oh, and there was the blanking of CSU. And the near-upset of Boise.

2007: Another promising campaign that tailspun into catastrophe, but it still featured two better wins than any that DC ever recorded as head coach. Glenn's 23-3 masterpiece over eventual 9-4 Virginia is still, by miles, the best win Wyoming has recorded this century. And there was also, perhaps, Wyoming's final win ever over TCU.

2008: Yes, it was a dismal, rotten, no-good season. But it still featured this.

And, as far as I'm concerned, it's still the most memorable/stunning image of Wyoming football in the 2000's. It doesn't matter how bad Tennessee was that season...Wyoming beat a Fulmer-coached Vols team in Neyland Stadium, and it happened under Glenn. DC never had a win that remotely rivaled it.

That's fair. And despite arguing this, I like the hell out of Joe, and really couldn't stand Dave. But, Dave had better results, its that simple. And yes, one of the bowls was with a lot of Glenn's players, but Glenn doesn't win that or even get to that bowl. Cause Glenn doesn't bring in ACS.

I hear ya. I'll take Joe Glenn at Wyoming any day of the week - mainly because he competed in a tough MWC with defense - and a pretty reasonable offense.

Christensen - he could put together an offense. And it worked here except against good defensive teams. That last USU game for example - we lost - what 30x points to 7?

With Glenn, we played several Boise State teams that put 8x on the board offensively (average), and we held them to no more than 3 touchdowns.

Glenn had a defense. He had an offense. He needed a quarterback. I agree with that.

I agree with your Glenn statement, taking him over DC anytime. And let's not go too crazy with DC being able to put together an offense. Even with the talent he had, did his Wyo teams even have a higher PPG average than Glenn?

 

[joshvanklomp]

The simple fact is this, had he committed more recruits to defense in his first two recruiting years right at this moment we would be complaining of a lackluster defense (not terrible, like we claim now).
And we would be questioning and complaining about the offense even moreso than we do now!

Exactly.

It's important to remember that recruiting classes are usually between 20-25 kids coming into your program, whether freshmen or transfers. Meanwhile, you have a roster of over 100 players (I counted 119). That alone should show why getting a program off the ground takes some time.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Every WYO team the past 5 years, hell maybe ever, was better than the current mess. The blame DC shit is old and a bad excuse. Bohl made this as his approach to rebuild. The extra short recruiting period his first year was his choice. Not recruiting JC or defense was his choice. His way or highway was his choice. This is his approach to the rebuild. I'm for giving him his 4 years to see how it goes. I'm not convinced that it will or will not work.

Like I said, the main difference is you fanboys think there was no other way and this is guaranteed to work. I think this is Bohl's way and think it can work, maybe.

 

[wyokoke]

Glenn beat some big name teams. He had beaten every team in the conference at least once. He had his up's and down's, but hell, its sad to look at him as the bright spot of the last 15 years.

But he hasn't been the bright spot...DC has.

:lol:

Glenn pasted a Virginia team that finished 9-4 by 20 points in UW's home opener. DC lost to Cal Poly. Most talented player on this side of Jay Novacek? Yep, that was Glenn's doing, too. Koenning, strangely enough, came the closest to beating a highly ranked team (an undefeated BYU team in 2001) of anyone we've had since the late 90's. It would be really nice if ANYONE could put a scare into a good team anymore. And I'm not talking about losing by 31 points to Texas in a game we led at one point. Yeah, Texas was a pretty good team in 2009 - you want to know who the best player on the field for either team was? Tashaun Gipson, by miles. Still shows how big the discrepancy is across a full roster.

I don't even know what the point of my post was. My apologies. It sucks to suck and I'm tired of sucking. But god damn, do we suck.

2 bowls in 5 years vs 1 in 6. Getting us to two bowls alone makes DC our best coach since...what, Tiller probably? I realize that it's a tallest midget contest, but DC is that "tall midget" right now.

Well, let's get something straight. The 2009 bowl doesn't ever happen if DC doesn't inherit three future NFL players (including one who might be an All-Pro) from Glenn, not to mention about 12 other key role players. That team was, by far, DC's strongest...and a 7-6 campaign was won on the back of Glenn's own players.

As for the 2011 season, there was good reason we got absolutely demolished by Temple in the bowl game, and it's because we had beaten no one that season. The 8-win mark was inflated by wins over a number of really bad teams. Our 2011 team was the perfect example of why the NCAA's bowl system is so ridiculous - essentially being rewarded with post-season play for not being one of the worst 60 teams in the country. They had no business being in a post-season game and got clobbered consequentially by a Temple team that was decent, but hardly great.

The best team that Wyoming has fielded in the 21st century didn't even go bowling - it was Glenn's 6-6 team in 2006. But that team passed the eye-test, blowing out a Utah team that finished with a winning record (31-0 at one point in the game) and then blanking CSU 24-0, not to mention recording the only true scare of a top-10 team we've had in the 21st century (losing 17-10 to eventual Fiesta Bowl champion Boise State).

DC had more bowl appearances, better win %, slightly more wins per year, and I believe sent more players to the pros. Thats facts, not the "eye test." (You could check my last point, I didn't look anything up for that)

"Sent players to the pros" doesn't reflect the fact that Glenn was the guy who was responsible for the Gipsons, Unrein, Pro, and that entire defense minus Shamiel Gary. The basic numbers you're citing are deceptive. You need to look at the actual quality of teams and programs Glenn beat vs. Christensen. Also, keep in mind that Christensen's final couple of seasons were spent coaching in a pseudo-watered down Mountain West that didn't include BYU or Utah (and, for the final two, TCU). Finally, some of the margin of defeat in those 2005-2007 seasons: yes, there were a few dismal blowout losses, but there were several nail biters against good teams that cost UW potential bowl bids in all three of those campaigns.

Glenn wasn't a great coach, but luck was rarely on his side with untimely/inexplicable turnovers and injuries. Christensen was simply a really bad coach.

Yes, Dave was a really bad coach. And still our best since Tiller.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree here.

Coach A beat:
-Virginia
-TCU
-Tennessee
-UCLA
-Ole Miss
-BYU
-Utah

And had a 7-point loss to the eventual undefeated Fiesta Bowl champion (Boise State).

Coach B beat:
-Fresno State

And had a 31-point loss to the eventual #2 team in the country (Texas) where Wyoming led at one point late in the first half.

As far as caliber of teams, the overall state of the product, etc., you couldn't convince me that we were closer to turning the corner with DC than with Glenn. Glenn twice had us on the verge - in 2005 and 2007 - and it all went sour on a series of inexplicable plays and some genuinely bad luck. Keep in mind that the New Mexico Glenn couldn't get past was a MUCH different animal than the doormat Christensen walked over every year...oh, wait, he lost to a winless Lobo team in 2010.

Even in the down times, we had something pretty memorable to celebrate in each of Glenn's seasons.

2003: Probably the final time Wyoming ever defeated BYU and CSU in the same season

2004: The first bowl win in decades, and a win over a UCLA team from a Big-5 conference (those are few-and-far between, and Glenn got most of them) that had several lasting NFL players.

2005: A 4-1 start and perhaps the last true "big-time" game at War Memorial Stadium (vs. TCU). Oh, and a series-sweep of an SEC opponent.

2006: The best overall Wyoming team of the 21st century. The heartbreaking losses definitely put a damper because we were left wondering what could have been, but no one will soon forget looking at a scoreboard that read "Wyoming 31, Utah 0" over a Utah team that finished with a winning record. Keep in mind we've beaten a total of 10 FBS/Division I teams since 2000 that had winning records. This was the second-most impressive. Oh, and there was the blanking of CSU. And the near-upset of Boise.

2007: Another promising campaign that tailspun into catastrophe, but it still featured two better wins than any that DC ever recorded as head coach. Glenn's 23-3 masterpiece over eventual 9-4 Virginia is still, by miles, the best win Wyoming has recorded this century. And there was also, perhaps, Wyoming's final win ever over TCU.

2008: Yes, it was a dismal, rotten, no-good season. But it still featured this.

And, as far as I'm concerned, it's still the most memorable/stunning image of Wyoming football in the 2000's. It doesn't matter how bad Tennessee was that season...Wyoming beat a Fulmer-coached Vols team in Neyland Stadium, and it happened under Glenn. DC never had a win that remotely rivaled it.

That's fair. And despite arguing this, I like the hell out of Joe, and really couldn't stand Dave. But, Dave had better results, its that simple. And yes, one of the bowls was with a lot of Glenn's players, but Glenn doesn't win that or even get to that bowl. Cause Glenn doesn't bring in ACS.

I hear ya. I'll take Joe Glenn at Wyoming any day of the week - mainly because he competed in a tough MWC with defense - and a pretty reasonable offense.

Christensen - he could put together an offense. And it worked here except against good defensive teams. That last USU game for example - we lost - what 30x points to 7?

With Glenn, we played several Boise State teams that put 8x on the board offensively (average), and we held them to no more than 3 touchdowns.

Glenn had a defense. He had an offense. He needed a quarterback. I agree with that.

I agree with your Glenn statement, taking him over DC anytime. And let's not go too crazy with DC being able to put together an offense. Even with the talent he had, did his Wyo teams even have a higher PPG average than Glenn?

I looked it up.
2003-23.8(76th)
2004-26.5(51st)
2005-24.6(68th)
2006-21.5(80th)
2007-19.4(108th)
2008-12.7(120th-Dead Last)
Glenn avg-21.4 and 84th

2009-18.3(109th)
2010-19.2(107th)
2011-26.1(67th)
2012-26.8(74th)
2013-31.2(51st)
DC avg-24.3 and 82nd

Defensively
2003-30.0(83rd)
2004-24.8(54th)
2005-27.0(70th)
2006-22.0(53rd)
2007-25.9(50th)
2008-27.8(74th)
Glenn avg-26.3 and 64th

2009-27.3(73rd)
2010-30.3(87th)
2011-27.6(67th)
2012-33.4(99th)
2013-36.7(111th)
DC avg-31.1 and 87th

There's your difference. So on average, Glenn lost 21-26, DC lost 24-31, and, so far, Bohl has lost 21-34

 

[kansasCowboy]

Every WYO team the past 5 years, hell maybe ever, was better than the current mess. The blame DC shit is old and a bad excuse. Bohl made this as his approach to rebuild. The extra short recruiting period his first year was his choice. Not recruiting JC or defense was his choice. His way or highway was his choice. This is his approach to the rebuild. I'm for giving him his 4 years to see how it goes. I'm not convinced that it will or will not work.

Like I said, the main difference is you fanboys think there was no other way and this is guaranteed to work. I think this is Bohl's way and think it can work, maybe.

What do you want to blame then? Because when you are in year two and all you have left over from the previous staff is "literally" a handful roster players, then you tend to have an issue outside of Bohl. There is a significant gap between upperclassmen and lowerclass. The gap was caused previous to Bohl and then spread more with attrition during coaching change.
We have done this give a coach few years over and over. That's obviously what you want, another umpteen years of losing and another three or four coaches in that time frame. Call me a fanboy all you want, I'm just saying give it time. You in the last two weeks have gone from, "give him a few years." To, "I guess I could see 5-6 years." To, "four years." Now.
Pretty soon, probably next week you'll be down to three years and by the end of the season just saying we should just cut our ties and let him go at the end of the season...
You're impatient and won't allow change.

 

[ELKMT]

I don't think we have a choice but to give Bohl time. The argument about the cupboard being bare is valid. However , Bohl should have had some plan to bridge the gap, especially at linebacker. Can he not recruit a couple JC linebackers or players physically mature to play lb or Dline as freshman ( even DC found a couple of those)I know he is playing a few players but there is no way a 198 pound defensive lineman should be seeing the field, let alone at linebacker. Having an 0-12 season really doesn't help build a program, so a little recruiting flexibility would have helped avoid the debacle which is this season.

 

[WyoBrandX]

Whats REALLY sad is that we're debating which coach with win percentage around 43% is the best of this century, and calling a 6-6 team the best of the last 15 years.

No kidding.

UW football is under .500 over the last 50 years...which is why I can't get too worked up about Bohl tearing it down to the foundation to start over. I couldn't care any less if we go winless this year, if that's what it takes.

This bullshit of trying to go 6-6 -- interspersed with 3-8 and 5-7 seasons -- to limp into another money-losing bowl has got to stop.

Nobody's gone all-in like this around here before, at least as far as I remember, and I find it refreshing.

This is a misleading statistic. If you subtract the last 15 years - we were an above average team over the same time period (35 years prior to Y2K).

This last 15 years has really drug us down.

 

[joshvanklomp]

Like I said, the main difference is you fanboys think there was no other way and this is guaranteed to work. I think this is Bohl's way and think it can work, maybe.

Actually, my opinion is exactly what yours is, minus the maybe.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

What do you want to blame then? Because when you are in year two and all you have left over from the previous staff is "literally" a handful roster players, then you tend to have an issue outside of Bohl. There is a significant gap between upperclassmen and lowerclass. The gap was caused previous to Bohl and then spread more with attrition during coaching change.
We have done this give a coach few years over and over. That's obviously what you want, another umpteen years of losing and another three or four coaches in that time frame. Call me a fanboy all you want, I'm just saying give it time. You in the last two weeks have gone from, "give him a few years." To, "I guess I could see 5-6 years." To, "four years." Now.
Pretty soon, probably next week you'll be down to three years and by the end of the season just saying we should just cut our ties and let him go at the end of the season...
You're impatient and won't allow change.

Bohl knew it was coming. He could have softened the blow with more JC guys. He himself said they overestimated their ability to coach these guys up, and he could have come straight here rather than waiting around 4 weeks. He didn't do those things because he thinks the approach he took is the best one. I say fair enough, but it sure as hell is not a sign that everything is just rosy.

You continue to be hypersensitive and put words in people's mouth. I've been steadfast in the 4 year-5 year timeline. If this is truly an investment then logic dictates that in 2 years, most of these guys will be Juniors, Seniors, and likely some Sophomores that had significant playing time (the Freshmen that will play next year). If this is truly an investment, then year 4 should be the signs of success. You can't have it both ways (i.e. this is an investment but our success will come after these guys graduate). FFS.

Look, it is pointless debate until year 4 anyway. I think Bohl will have reasonable success within 4 years and thinks will be okay. If he doesn't, then I think the options are cut bait after year 4 (if it has been an atrocious 4 years) or a really hot seat for year 5. Nonetheless, I don't think we'll have to make those decisions because, as I said, I think he will have reasonable success within 4 years--just not this year.

 

[kansasCowboy]

I don't think anyone has stated anything is rosy... And yeah he stayed an extra 4'weeks, during a time he could do what down here? We were doing no practices and there was no recruiting by anybody at that point. I guess he could've came here and sat around and thought about how he was going to win. Instead of being able to get his third championship.

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure sporting three championships in three years appeals to most of these recruits pretty significantly.

Other that that you're right, not much to argue till year four.

 

[Coeur d' Alene]

Like any coach he had a waste year. A "the cupboards are bare" year. Then when Brett smith "went pro" he didn't have to use that excuse until this year.

If (and I don't think it is part of the plan), IF jucos were a part of the plan it would be a really smart move to not use jucos to patch together the first few years but instead to add to something you actually got started.

Year 1: 25 high schoolers
Year 2: 25 high schoolers
year 3(now) 15 hs and 10 Juco
Year 4: 15/10
Year 5- end : 20/5.


That's how you could do it if you weren't worried about getting good in year 1 or 2 but wanted to start improving in years 3 and 4.

Wyo a great start to a recruiting class this year so it would be hard to fault them for going hs kids, but there has to be a time where they look at the first 2 classes they recruited and realize that those groups need added to. Give the Brian hill and Cummings types some help. Don't have them try to drag young guys through something they aren't ready for. Get them 3-4 guy on each side of the ball ready tocontribut next season as juniors

 

[ragtimejoe1]

What do you want to blame then? Because when you are in year two and all you have left over from the previous staff is "literally" a handful roster players, then you tend to have an issue outside of Bohl. There is a significant gap between upperclassmen and lowerclass. The gap was caused previous to Bohl and then spread more with attrition during coaching change.
We have done this give a coach few years over and over. That's obviously what you want, another umpteen years of losing and another three or four coaches in that time frame. Call me a fanboy all you want, I'm just saying give it time. You in the last two weeks have gone from, "give him a few years." To, "I guess I could see 5-6 years." To, "four years." Now.
Pretty soon, probably next week you'll be down to three years and by the end of the season just saying we should just cut our ties and let him go at the end of the season...
You're impatient and won't allow change.

What is our breakdown by class of scholarships for our 85 schollies? (i.e. how many schollies in each class)

 

[joshvanklomp]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CSTribune/status/649961057532817409[/tweet]

As Wyoming’s attendance drops with each passing defeat, and fans continue to criticize coach Craig Bohl and his staff, the Cowboys’ verbal commits’ trust in Bohl hasn’t wavered.

“I believe in the coaching staff,” said Rush, from Aurora, Nebraska. “I’ve been reading through the forums and stuff, and I know some of the fans don’t. People have to realize it’s going to take time to change the program basically in a 180 with a new staff. I really believe in what they’re doing. They’re playing a bunch of young kids. You’ve just got to give them time.”

 

[JimmyDimes]

Even though many of our fans don't understand the situation, I'm glad that the recruits do. They are the building blocks of the future.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Even though many of our fans don't understand the situation, I'm glad that the recruits do. They are the building blocks of the future.

What MANY fans don't understand our situation? I think there are only a few (1 or 2) that are calling for Bohl's head this year.

 

[SDPokeFan]

Even though many of our fans don't understand the situation, I'm glad that the recruits do. They are the building blocks of the future.

We are only four games into this grease fire. Let's see how many decommit after the team goes winless.

 

[LanderPoke]

Even though many of our fans don't understand the situation, I'm glad that the recruits do. They are the building blocks of the future.

We are only four games into this grease fire. Let's see how many decommit after the team goes winless.

Lordy. Take it easy. It's like you want us to do terribly and for all our recruits to decommit. I hope outsiders don't take anything you say seriously.