Craig Bohl's Legacy

[307bball]

1-21 in conference over those years. How quickly folks forget I guess.

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Everybody always debates the best.... Now we can argue over who is the worst!

For my money...there just is no excuse in the conference that Wyoming is in to win one conference game in three years..... That's my low point.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Everybody always debates the best.... Now we can argue over who is the worst!

For my money...there just is no excuse in the conference that Wyoming is in to win one conference game in three years..... That's my low point.

To me, Bohl had 2 of the better years of WYO football history, 2 of the worst, and 6 that are more reflective of a dog$hit conference. Just me and how I look at it.

 

[Lost Poke]

1-21 in conference over those years. How quickly folks forget I guess.

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Agreed that the early 2000's MWC was a vastly tougher conference. But those teams could hardly manage to get the right number of players on the field sometimes. And they didn't win OOC either, and had elegibility issues. Boh's tenure has been nothing like it.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Agreed that the early 2000's MWC was a vastly tougher conference. But those teams could hardly manage to get the right number of players on the field sometimes. And they didn't win OOC either, and had elegibility issues. Boh's tenure has been nothing like it.

Well let’s not go too far, I remember those close out of conference wins we were able to pull off against the mighty Furman and Citadel!!

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Agreed that the early 2000's MWC was a vastly tougher conference. But those teams could hardly manage to get the right number of players on the field sometimes. And they didn't win OOC either, and had elegibility issues. Boh's tenure has been nothing like it.

Well let’s not go too far, I remember those close out of conference wins we were able to pull off against the mighty Furman and Citadel!!

No kidding. Kind of like getting smacked at home by North Dakota and giving eastern Michigan their first nonconference road win since the 80s.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Bad teams also. Bohl's are right up there against worse competition.

Agreed that the early 2000's MWC was a vastly tougher conference. But those teams could hardly manage to get the right number of players on the field sometimes. And they didn't win OOC either, and had elegibility issues. Boh's tenure has been nothing like it.

I'm not talking Bohl's tenure just that his first 2 years were some of the worst wyo football I've seen. Luckily Burman softened the ooc schedule after that 2014 season.

 

[307bball]

Agreed that the early 2000's MWC was a vastly tougher conference. But those teams could hardly manage to get the right number of players on the field sometimes. And they didn't win OOC either, and had elegibility issues. Boh's tenure has been nothing like it.

I'm not talking Bohl's tenure just that his first 2 years were some of the worst wyo football I've seen. Luckily Burman softened the ooc schedule after that 2014 season.

I don't know the "right" way to look at those to periods of time but focusing on SOS seems to be a version of trying to answer the question "who would win head to head?". Once you are separated by a generation...it's very hard to compare apples and apples.

The need to remind everybody that the current MWC is not as strong as the MWC from 20 years ago doesn't add anything to this. Was Wyoming a part of the conference or not during those years? Should we expect them to compete within the conference they are a part of? Or should we downgrade and upgrade results based on the fluctuations in conference strength. It's a fool's errand. If Wyoming were floating along at .500 every year, that would be one thing, but in the 40+ years I've been following Cowboy football the bottom of the conference Wyoming has been in has never been good enough to justify 1 or less conference wins/year. The difference between two years in a row with 0 conference wins and being .500 can't be explained away as a complete artifact of conference strength.

'14 and '15 was the result of a completely eroded program culture that any coach taking over was going to go through....does that make it ok? Not really ... it's only slightly ok in hindsight because we can see now that it was going somewhere. I wish it had gone farther....

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not talking Bohl's tenure just that his first 2 years were some of the worst wyo football I've seen. Luckily Burman softened the ooc schedule after that 2014 season.

I don't know the "right" way to look at those to periods of time but focusing on SOS seems to be a version of trying to answer the question "who would win head to head?". Once you are separated by a generation...it's very hard to compare apples and apples.

The need to remind everybody that the current MWC is not as strong as the MWC from 20 years ago doesn't add anything to this. Was Wyoming a part of the conference or not during those years? Should we expect them to compete within the conference they are a part of? Or should we downgrade and upgrade results based on the fluctuations in conference strength. It's a fool's errand. If Wyoming were floating along at .500 every year, that would be one thing, but in the 40+ years I've been following Cowboy football the bottom of the conference Wyoming has been in has never been good enough to justify 1 or less conference wins/year. The difference between two years in a row with 0 conference wins and being .500 can't be explained away as a complete artifact of conference strength.

'14 and '15 was the result of a completely eroded program culture that any coach taking over was going to go through....does that make it ok? Not really ... it's only slightly ok in hindsight because we can see now that it was going somewhere. I wish it had gone farther....

First 2 years were bad football. Excusable or inexcusable is a perception. Bad football is a fact. Mostly weren't beating good or bad teams.

His 2 best years were largely good football. Likely beating bad and mediocre teams as well as beating decent teams.

Regarding sos, 2018 is a great example. 6 wins all from dog$hit teams. 1 more even decent team and there isn't 6 wins with that squad. There's about 6 years where the team wasn't good enough to be good football or bad enough to bad football. It mainly depended on how many dog$hit teams were on the schedule.

 

[307bball]

I don't know the "right" way to look at those to periods of time but focusing on SOS seems to be a version of trying to answer the question "who would win head to head?". Once you are separated by a generation...it's very hard to compare apples and apples.

The need to remind everybody that the current MWC is not as strong as the MWC from 20 years ago doesn't add anything to this. Was Wyoming a part of the conference or not during those years? Should we expect them to compete within the conference they are a part of? Or should we downgrade and upgrade results based on the fluctuations in conference strength. It's a fool's errand. If Wyoming were floating along at .500 every year, that would be one thing, but in the 40+ years I've been following Cowboy football the bottom of the conference Wyoming has been in has never been good enough to justify 1 or less conference wins/year. The difference between two years in a row with 0 conference wins and being .500 can't be explained away as a complete artifact of conference strength.

'14 and '15 was the result of a completely eroded program culture that any coach taking over was going to go through....does that make it ok? Not really ... it's only slightly ok in hindsight because we can see now that it was going somewhere. I wish it had gone farther....

First 2 years were bad football. Excusable or inexcusable is a perception. Bad football is a fact. Mostly weren't beating good or bad teams.

His 2 best years were largely good football. Likely beating bad and mediocre teams as well as beating decent teams.

Regarding sos, 2018 is a great example. 6 wins all from dog$hit teams. 1 more even decent team and there isn't 6 wins with that squad. There's about 6 years where the team wasn't good enough to be good football or bad enough to bad football. It mainly depended on how many dog$hit teams were on the schedule.

Conference win totals since '16 (Original MWC members in bold):

BSU 53
SDSU 39 4.88 wins/year
AFA 37 4.63 wins/year
FRES 36
USU 34
WYO 33 4.13 wins/year
NEV 28
HAW 27
SJSU 24
CSU 24 3 wins/year
UNLV 22 2.75 wins/year
UNM 13 1.63 wins/year

From 2000 through 2015...those same six members:

AFA 64 4 wins/year
SDSU 62 3.88 wins/year
CSU 58 3.63 wins/year
UNM 49 3.06 wins/year
WYO 36 2.25 wins/year
UNLV 35 2.19 wins/year

In the years from 2000 through 2014, Wyoming had less conference wins (36) than anybody but UNLV (35). Now you look and the conference makeup has changed and of the original conference, only AFA and SDSU are still ahead of us in conference wins. Now, in that group of teams....Wyoming had the most striking change...nearly doubling the average conference wins/year. Because the conference got worse right??? Well...why did none of those 6 teams also increase their conference wins/year as much as Wyoming did? And why did CSU and UNM fall off a cliff? The conference is easier right?

Relative to every one of those programs Wyoming increased it's conference wins/year the most by far...Is the conference better or worse? It's interesting to notice and point out, but if that was the main factor that explains everything, you would at least see the majority of those six members having the same movement as Wyoming. But that is not the case. The movement in those win totals is directly because The Wyoming program was abysmal from 2000-2014 and got much better. Conference strength fluctuations do not explain the gains Wyoming has made.

Either the conference has not gotten weaker (I don't think this is the case...though I don't think it's explanatory), or there are other things going on besides the overall strength of the conference we are in that got much better under Craig Bohl. Otherwise It looks like only Wyoming has benefitted much from the "dog$hit" conference. There is more going on than just the conference getting weaker.

 

[stymeman]

A high 7 for me, afterall we are Medocrity U!!!!

 

[ragtimejoe1]

First 2 years were bad football. Excusable or inexcusable is a perception. Bad football is a fact. Mostly weren't beating good or bad teams.

His 2 best years were largely good football. Likely beating bad and mediocre teams as well as beating decent teams.

Regarding sos, 2018 is a great example. 6 wins all from dog$hit teams. 1 more even decent team and there isn't 6 wins with that squad. There's about 6 years where the team wasn't good enough to be good football or bad enough to bad football. It mainly depended on how many dog$hit teams were on the schedule.

Conference win totals since '16 (Original MWC members in bold):

BSU 53
SDSU 39 4.88 wins/year
AFA 37 4.63 wins/year
FRES 36
USU 34
WYO 33 4.13 wins/year
NEV 28
HAW 27
SJSU 24
CSU 24 3 wins/year
UNLV 22 2.75 wins/year
UNM 13 1.63 wins/year

From 2000 through 2015...those same six members:

AFA 64 4 wins/year
SDSU 62 3.88 wins/year
CSU 58 3.63 wins/year
UNM 49 3.06 wins/year
WYO 36 2.25 wins/year
UNLV 35 2.19 wins/year

In the years from 2000 through 2014, Wyoming had less conference wins (36) than anybody but UNLV (35). Now you look and the conference makeup has changed and of the original conference, only AFA and SDSU are still ahead of us in conference wins. Now, in that group of teams....Wyoming had the most striking change...nearly doubling the average conference wins/year. Because the conference got worse right??? Well...why did none of those 6 teams also increase their conference wins/year as much as Wyoming did? And why did CSU and UNM fall off a cliff? The conference is easier right?

Relative to every one of those programs Wyoming increased it's conference wins/year the most by far...Is the conference better or worse? It's interesting to notice and point out, but if that was the main factor that explains everything, you would at least see the majority of those six members having the same movement as Wyoming. But that is not the case. The movement in those win totals is directly because The Wyoming program was abysmal from 2000-2014 and got much better. Conference strength fluctuations do not explain the gains Wyoming has made.

Either the conference has not gotten weaker (I don't think this is the case...though I don't think it's explanatory), or there are other things going on besides the overall strength of the conference we are in that got much better under Craig Bohl. Otherwise It looks like only Wyoming has benefitted much from the "dog$hit" conference. There is more going on than just the conference getting weaker.

They have conference rankings each year. Check those out.

What was a good team that wyo beat in 2018?

 

[307bball]

Conference win totals since '16 (Original MWC members in bold):

BSU 53
SDSU 39 4.88 wins/year
AFA 37 4.63 wins/year
FRES 36
USU 34
WYO 33 4.13 wins/year
NEV 28
HAW 27
SJSU 24
CSU 24 3 wins/year
UNLV 22 2.75 wins/year
UNM 13 1.63 wins/year

From 2000 through 2015...those same six members:

AFA 64 4 wins/year
SDSU 62 3.88 wins/year
CSU 58 3.63 wins/year
UNM 49 3.06 wins/year
WYO 36 2.25 wins/year
UNLV 35 2.19 wins/year

In the years from 2000 through 2014, Wyoming had less conference wins (36) than anybody but UNLV (35). Now you look and the conference makeup has changed and of the original conference, only AFA and SDSU are still ahead of us in conference wins. Now, in that group of teams....Wyoming had the most striking change...nearly doubling the average conference wins/year. Because the conference got worse right??? Well...why did none of those 6 teams also increase their conference wins/year as much as Wyoming did? And why did CSU and UNM fall off a cliff? The conference is easier right?

Relative to every one of those programs Wyoming increased it's conference wins/year the most by far...Is the conference better or worse? It's interesting to notice and point out, but if that was the main factor that explains everything, you would at least see the majority of those six members having the same movement as Wyoming. But that is not the case. The movement in those win totals is directly because The Wyoming program was abysmal from 2000-2014 and got much better. Conference strength fluctuations do not explain the gains Wyoming has made.

Either the conference has not gotten weaker (I don't think this is the case...though I don't think it's explanatory), or there are other things going on besides the overall strength of the conference we are in that got much better under Craig Bohl. Otherwise It looks like only Wyoming has benefitted much from the "dog$hit" conference. There is more going on than just the conference getting weaker.

They have conference rankings each year. Check those out.

What was a good team that wyo beat in 2018?

It's so frustrating to discuss this stuff with you.... Did you even read what I wrote? Nobody is confused about where the MWC fits into the conference power rankings.

If the jump in conference wins per year were due, in the main, to a weaker conference.... All or most of the teams in common from both eras would have experienced an increase in conference wins similar to what Wyoming did. That did not happen. You can't un-see the facts.


The constant harping on conference strength as the explanation for the paltry success that Wyoming finally achieved (yay we got to the middle!!) has gone from slightly interesting to annoying to absurd.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

They have conference rankings each year. Check those out.

What was a good team that wyo beat in 2018?

It's so frustrating to discuss this stuff with you.... Did you even read what I wrote? Nobody is confused about where the MWC fits into the conference power rankings.

If the jump in conference wins per year were due, in the main, to a weaker conference.... All or most of the teams in common from both eras would have experienced an increase in conference wins similar to what Wyoming did. That did not happen. You can't un-see the facts.


The constant harping on conference strength as the explanation for the paltry success that Wyoming finally achieved (yay we got to the middle!!) has gone from slightly interesting to annoying to absurd.

When I get time I'll show you why your analysis is wrong. Some of the crappy teams we beat each year aren't the same every year. Csu fell off the map since Sonny. Yes, other than 2 years Bohl kept us from being a bad team. I've already said that. However, in a dog$hit conference you can count on several teams being garbage even if it isn't the same team every year.

Look at 2018 and tell me I'm wrong. There were 6 terrible teams on the schedule. If there were 7 or 8, we'd probably get that many wins. If there 2 or 3, we'd probably get that many wins.

6 or so of Bohl's years fall into that category, imo. Good enough to not be a dumpster fire, not good enough to beat the upper end, but good enough to beat other teams that are dumpster fires. The only question is how the schedule lines up and how many dumpster fires you get. Bohl's 2 or maybe 3 best years, the schedule was not as influential because the teams were good enough to handle mediocre teams and largely compete well against solid teams. I'm not sure why you view that as controversial. Bohl was a perfect coach to beat up 5 dumpster fires and 1 or 2 mediocre teams.

 

[307bball]

When I get time I'll show you why your analysis is wrong. Some of the crappy teams we beat each year aren't the same every year. Csu fell off the map since Sonny. Yes, other than 2 years Bohl kept us from being a bad team. I've already said that. However, in a dog$hit conference you can count on several teams being garbage even if it isn't the same team every year.

You could change the bolded statement to "Some of the crappy teams that beat us each year aren't the same every year" if you look at the stretch from 2000-2015 and you would be just as correct. It's also true that the other teams in our conference that played the same conference schedule did not benefit like Wyoming did from the "weakened" MWC....You keep attempting to handwave that away. Your observation that CSU (and UNM btw) fell off the map since sonny (and Rocky) is correct. That is the same as observing that since '16, CB has gotten Wyoming on the map, so to speak. During the Sonny Lubick and Rocky Long era those schools had better ran programs than they have since....that is the opposite of Wyoming. Wyoming became a better run program than it was during those years ... EVEN WHILE THE CONFERENCE GOT WORSE. I'm taking issue with your characterization of the moderately increased success under the last 8 years of CB as entirely an artifact of the conference getting worse.

Look at 2018 and tell me I'm wrong. There were 6 terrible teams on the schedule. If there were 7 or 8, we'd probably get that many wins. If there 2 or 3, we'd probably get that many wins.

I'll take you at your word ... I have no issue with SOS spiking or dropping in any given year.

6 or so of Bohl's years fall into that category, imo. Good enough to not be a dumpster fire, not good enough to beat the upper end, but good enough to beat other teams that are dumpster fires. The only question is how the schedule lines up and how many dumpster fires you get. Bohl's 2 or maybe 3 best years, the schedule was not as influential because the teams were good enough to handle mediocre teams and largely compete well against solid teams. I'm not sure why you view that as controversial. Bohl was a perfect coach to beat up 5 dumpster fires and 1 or 2 mediocre teams.

There were a common group of 6 teams that shared a conference with us since 2000. One team in that group (WYO) had an increase in success against teams they all had to play every year that started in '16 that was much higher than the rest. The rest of those teams largely stayed the same or just dropped off the map (CSU and UNM) measured by results against the teams within the conference....this sets aside what happens in OOC games. I'm not interested in OOC unless Wyoming is in the running for a NY6 bowl...but that has not been in play. If Wyoming's increase in conference wins/year had been between what SDSU did (moderate) or what AFA accomplished (slight)...I think I would very much agree with you. Some of that increase in success is probably attributed to the bad conference but not all of it.

If having a bad coach explains what has gone on at UNM and CSU...Why does Bohl being a good coach not matter when explaining the best increase in results among that group in conference wins/year?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not saying Bohl was a bad coach. He was good enough to keep us from being a dumpster other than 2 years. He was good enough to keep us able to beat dumpster fire teams and some mediocre teams most years. In these years, strength of opponent really mattered. He also had a couple good years where the strength of opponent mattered less.

The analysis has already been done on this board regarding Bohl's winning percentage against various categories of teams. The MWC is a dog$hit conference that usually has 4 to 6 really bad teams. Bohl kept us from being one of those but his record most years absolutely depended on how many of those teams he faced. His winning % against poor, mediocre, solid, and damn good teams backs that up.

To me, Bohl's legacy is he kept us from being a dumpster fire when the conference devolved into a dumpster fire. Seems like several years Burman also softened the ooc schedule intentional or otherwise.

Go back and look at Bohl's record against top 25, 40, 60, etc. teams and then count how many of those were on the schedule each year. Like I said, I'm not sure why it's so controversial to you.

 

[307bball]

I'm not saying Bohl was a bad coach. He was good enough to keep us from being a dumpster other than 2 years. He was good enough to keep us able to beat dumpster fire teams and some mediocre teams most years. In these years, strength of opponent really mattered. He also had a couple good years where the strength of opponent mattered less.

The analysis has already been done on this board regarding Bohl's winning percentage against various categories of teams. The MWC is a dog$hit conference that usually has 4 to 6 really bad teams. Bohl kept us from being one of those but his record most years absolutely depended on how many of those teams he faced. His winning % against poor, mediocre, solid, and damn good teams backs that up.

To me, Bohl's legacy is he kept us from being a dumpster fire when the conference devolved into a dumpster fire. Seems like several years Burman also softened the ooc schedule intentional or otherwise.

Go back and look at Bohl's record against top 25, 40, 60, etc. teams and then count how many of those were on the schedule each year. Like I said, I'm not sure why it's so controversial to you.

I've looked at the conference strength stuff just like everybody else...I'm a Wyoming football fan that cares about that stuff. The difference in conferences between The first 12-15 years of this century and since then, is that the six teams that are still in the conference from the earlier time period traded 3 teams they largely could not beat for 1 team (BSU) that they largely cannot beat along with 5 other programs that have been sort of a wash. The fact that, in the broader context of the entire FBS, the conference has slipped is true (please hear that) but not explanatory for Wyoming's increased success within the conference. I also don't think what has happened to OOC games is happening in a vacuum. P5 schools have become more and more hesitant to schedule a G5 school that might beat them (and Wyoming has that rep). Burman and every other AD in the MW would love to have a patsy and then some highly visible games against big time programs for OOC.

I desire that Wyoming should be a member of a highly regarded conference. I think we all do. It is just the wrong thing to connect to every discussion about individual coach legacy. I'm mad that the MWC is losing relevance every year but Coaches are not the cause or the solution to that.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not saying Bohl was a bad coach. He was good enough to keep us from being a dumpster other than 2 years. He was good enough to keep us able to beat dumpster fire teams and some mediocre teams most years. In these years, strength of opponent really mattered. He also had a couple good years where the strength of opponent mattered less.

The analysis has already been done on this board regarding Bohl's winning percentage against various categories of teams. The MWC is a dog$hit conference that usually has 4 to 6 really bad teams. Bohl kept us from being one of those but his record most years absolutely depended on how many of those teams he faced. His winning % against poor, mediocre, solid, and damn good teams backs that up.

To me, Bohl's legacy is he kept us from being a dumpster fire when the conference devolved into a dumpster fire. Seems like several years Burman also softened the ooc schedule intentional or otherwise.

Go back and look at Bohl's record against top 25, 40, 60, etc. teams and then count how many of those were on the schedule each year. Like I said, I'm not sure why it's so controversial to you.

I've looked at the conference strength stuff just like everybody else...I'm a Wyoming football fan that cares about that stuff. The difference in conferences between The first 12-15 years of this century and since then, is that the six teams that are still in the conference from the earlier time period traded 3 teams they largely could not beat for 1 team (BSU) that they largely cannot beat along with 5 other programs that have been sort of a wash. The fact that, in the broader context of the entire FBS, the conference has slipped is true (please hear that) but not explanatory for Wyoming's increased success within the conference. I also don't think what has happened to OOC games is happening in a vacuum. P5 schools have become more and more hesitant to schedule a G5 school that might beat them (and Wyoming has that rep). Burman and every other AD in the MW would love to have a patsy and then some highly visible games against big time programs for OOC.

I desire that Wyoming should be a member of a highly regarded conference. I think we all do. It is just the wrong thing to connect to every discussion about individual coach legacy. I'm mad that the MWC is losing relevance every year but Coaches are not the cause or the solution to that.

If you think Bohl faced the same number of teams each year that were ranked in the top 25, 30, 40, 60, etc as his predecessors, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree until I get time to look it up.

Really comparing to predecessors isn't as significant as looking at what types of teams he consistently beat and how many he faced each year.

 

[307bball]

I've looked at the conference strength stuff just like everybody else...I'm a Wyoming football fan that cares about that stuff. The difference in conferences between The first 12-15 years of this century and since then, is that the six teams that are still in the conference from the earlier time period traded 3 teams they largely could not beat for 1 team (BSU) that they largely cannot beat along with 5 other programs that have been sort of a wash. The fact that, in the broader context of the entire FBS, the conference has slipped is true (please hear that) but not explanatory for Wyoming's increased success within the conference. I also don't think what has happened to OOC games is happening in a vacuum. P5 schools have become more and more hesitant to schedule a G5 school that might beat them (and Wyoming has that rep). Burman and every other AD in the MW would love to have a patsy and then some highly visible games against big time programs for OOC.

I desire that Wyoming should be a member of a highly regarded conference. I think we all do. It is just the wrong thing to connect to every discussion about individual coach legacy. I'm mad that the MWC is losing relevance every year but Coaches are not the cause or the solution to that.

If you think Bohl faced the same number of teams each year that were ranked in the top 25, 30, 40, 60, etc as his predecessors, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree until I get time to look it up.

Really comparing to predecessors isn't as significant as looking at what types of teams he consistently beat and how many he faced each year.

*sigh*...do you just not see the text that I write when I observe that the conference strength has slipped? I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Do I need to write that twice? here goes...maybe it will sink in. I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Heck ... for three out of the six teams i'm looking at...they did have a modest uptick in conf wins/year. Perfectly explainable by playing worse competition.

Now..I'm going to write something else that may cause you to forget what I wrote above. If that happens, start over. I don't accept that the conference got so bad that it caused Wyoming to nearly doubled it's conference wins/year. You cannot ignore that Wyoming and Wyoming alone, out of the 6 teams that remained in the MWC for that entire stretch, had that kind of increase. If it was due, in the main, to the conference getting weaker (Which happened...nobody is disputing that), the other 5 teams would have a similar movement in the category of conference wins/year. But you don't see that....because it still matters who is at the helm. If you screw it up you'll end up like CSU and UNM .... unable to "feast" on the diminished remains of the conference. Or maybe we just maintain whatever we had going from 2000-2014 (which was very little) and enjoy a modest uptick. That would have been predictable at least. Nope...Burman hired Bohl and we saw a large turnaround relative to our long time conference mates that is not entirely explained by just conference strength.

I would love for Bohl to have gotten even more progress. That last bump up to an average of 5 or so wins/year surely would have come with a title or at least more championship game appearances. Is the next guy going to get us there? I think most are taking a wait and see approach...I'm pessimistic, but I hope I'm wrong.

Anyways, if all that matters is that Wyoming play more teams in the top 50 or so of CFB...I think Wyoming football may not be for you. That train has left the station years ago.

 

[cowpoke pride]

Went with a 6. Couldn't round up to 7.
What he didn't do:
1 Didn't deliver on "Those who stay will be champions."
2 Didn't spend a single week in the Top 25 (but then again neither did the 3 coaches before him).

What he did do:
1 Provided much needed stability for a decade during a crazy time in college football history.
2 Stayed out of trouble.
3 Delivered the most wins in a season in 27 years

61-60 kind of speaks for itself.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If you think Bohl faced the same number of teams each year that were ranked in the top 25, 30, 40, 60, etc as his predecessors, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree until I get time to look it up.

Really comparing to predecessors isn't as significant as looking at what types of teams he consistently beat and how many he faced each year.

*sigh*...do you just not see the text that I write when I observe that the conference strength has slipped? I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Do I need to write that twice? here goes...maybe it will sink in. I accept that it's not irrational to think that playing somewhat worse teams in conference should contribute to more wins in conference. Heck ... for three out of the six teams i'm looking at...they did have a modest uptick in conf wins/year. Perfectly explainable by playing worse competition.

Now..I'm going to write something else that may cause you to forget what I wrote above. If that happens, start over. I don't accept that the conference got so bad that it caused Wyoming to nearly doubled it's conference wins/year. You cannot ignore that Wyoming and Wyoming alone, out of the 6 teams that remained in the MWC for that entire stretch, had that kind of increase. If it was due, in the main, to the conference getting weaker (Which happened...nobody is disputing that), the other 5 teams would have a similar movement in the category of conference wins/year. But you don't see that....because it still matters who is at the helm. If you screw it up you'll end up like CSU and UNM .... unable to "feast" on the diminished remains of the conference. Or maybe we just maintain whatever we had going from 2000-2014 (which was very little) and enjoy a modest uptick. That would have been predictable at least. Nope...Burman hired Bohl and we saw a large turnaround relative to our long time conference mates that is not entirely explained by just conference strength.

I would love for Bohl to have gotten even more progress. That last bump up to an average of 5 or so wins/year surely would have come with a title or at least more championship game appearances. Is the next guy going to get us there? I think most are taking a wait and see approach...I'm pessimistic, but I hope I'm wrong.

Anyways, if all that matters is that Wyoming play more teams in the top 50 or so of CFB...I think Wyoming football may not be for you. That train has left the station years ago.

Looks like we pretty much agree. Bohl kept us out of the cellar like csu and unm. Bohl largely couldn't beat upper mediocre to good teams; he could beat bad teams.

Luckily we faced a lot of bad teams.

Just not that controversial.