Glenn vs DC vs Bohl by Sagarin

[calpoke25]

Had some free time so I thought it’d be an interesting comparison. Sagarin isn’t perfect but I think for something like this it provides an adequate means of comparison, also for SOS. End of season rankings used for all. I only used the strength of conference opponents Wyoming played to gauge SOS better.

Glenn (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 5-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 3-14
Average strength of conference opponents 63
Average Wyoming team 82

DC (5 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 0-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 2-6
Average strength of conference opponents 84
Average Wyoming team 105

Bohl (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 2-18
Vs Sagarin top 75 4-8
Average strength of conference opponents 87
Average Wyoming team 97

While compiling this information a couple of things stand out.
#1 The drop off in conference strength after UU, BYU and TCU leave is enormous. That coupled with other programs in the MW really tanking like UNM, CSU and UNLV makes the MW now significantly weaker. Glenn has a bunch more games vs top 50, top 75 teams.
# 2 DC was worse
#3 Bohls rating is weighed down heavily by his first two years, since then we’ve settled into a high 70s average. Actually Sagarin Rates the 2019 team as his best, likely due to no blow outs.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Nice!
Out of curiosity, did Bohl's wins against top 75 happen all in one year?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Nice!
Out of curiosity, did Bohl's wins against top 75 happen all in one year?

Missouri is Sagarin 48 this year following the conclusion of last week's games.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Glenn (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 5-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 3-14
Average strength of conference opponents 63
Average Wyoming team 82

DC (5 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 0-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 2-6
Average strength of conference opponents 84
Average Wyoming team 105

Bohl (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 2-18
Vs Sagarin top 75 4-8
Average strength of conference opponents 87
Average Wyoming team 97

I'm not following. How could a team have more wins against the Sagarin Top 50 than the Sagarin Top 75?? By default, all teams within Sagarin Top 50 are within Sagarin Top 75. Is the top 75 you reference actually teams ranked 51-75?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Glenn (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 5-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 3-14
Average strength of conference opponents 63
Average Wyoming team 82

DC (5 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 0-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 2-6
Average strength of conference opponents 84
Average Wyoming team 105

Bohl (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 2-18
Vs Sagarin top 75 4-8
Average strength of conference opponents 87
Average Wyoming team 97

I'm not following. How could a team have more wins against the Sagarin Top 50 than the Sagarin Top 75?? By default, all teams within Sagarin Top 50 are within Sagarin Top 75. Is the top 75 you reference actually teams ranked 51-75?

I'll assume it is 51-75.

Therefore, against top 75 Sagarin teams both Glenn and Bohl won at a nearly identical 23% clip. DC won at an abysmal 7.6% clip. But...if you look at Bohl's last 3 years versus Glenn's last years, I think Bohl would show a much better upwards projection.

 

[wyokoke]

Glenn (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 5-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 3-14
Average strength of conference opponents 63
Average Wyoming team 82

DC (5 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 0-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 2-6
Average strength of conference opponents 84
Average Wyoming team 105

Bohl (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 2-18
Vs Sagarin top 75 4-8
Average strength of conference opponents 87
Average Wyoming team 97

I'm not following. How could a team have more wins against the Sagarin Top 50 than the Sagarin Top 75?? By default, all teams within Sagarin Top 50 are within Sagarin Top 75. Is the top 75 you reference actually teams ranked 51-75?

I'll assume it is 51-75.

Therefore, against top 75 Sagarin teams both Glenn and Bohl won at a nearly identical 23% clip. DC won at an abysmal 7.6% clip. But...if you look at Bohl's last 3 years versus Glenn's last years, I think Bohl would show a much better upwards projection.

Not if you base that off of this board

 

[bladerunnr]

Give me a break. Sagarin ratings are a complete joke. His methodology is questionable at best. Teams are rated high even if they lose a bunch of games. Conference affiliation is everything. For example, he still has Michigan in the top ten with 3 losses. They got blown out by Wisconsin, Ohio State, and a closer loss to Penn State. They beat Rutgers and a bunch of so so big ten teams. There are a lot of teams with losing records in the top 50.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

:

Glenn (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 5-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 3-14
Average strength of conference opponents 63
Average Wyoming team 82

DC (5 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 0-20
Vs Sagarin top 75 2-6
Average strength of conference opponents 84
Average Wyoming team 105

Bohl (6 seasons)
Vs Sagarin top 50 2-18
Vs Sagarin top 75 4-8
Average strength of conference opponents 87
Average Wyoming team 97

I'm not following. How could a team have more wins against the Sagarin Top 50 than the Sagarin Top 75?? By default, all teams within Sagarin Top 50 are within Sagarin Top 75. Is the top 75 you reference actually teams ranked 51-75?

I'll assume it is 51-75.

Therefore, against top 75 Sagarin teams both Glenn and Bohl won at a nearly identical 23% clip. DC won at an abysmal 7.6% clip. But...if you look at Bohl's last 3 years versus Glenn's last years, I think Bohl would show a much better upwards projection.

It would be interesting to see. Based on t50 wins, Bohl's were all 3 years ago except the Missouri win this year. A downward trajectory from 3 years ago. I'm not sure on t75.

 

[bladerunnr]

Here is the final 2016 Sagarin ratings
'
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/

Note that Csewe, a team we crushed, had a higher rating than us. We finished with a Sagarin rating of 78, below 3-9 Iowa state (#71). Just complete nonsense to use this idiotic rating service to make an argument.

 

[LanderPoke]

Agree. Sagarin sucks

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Meh. Not a perfect rating system but trends are clear. The MWC was substantially stronger years ago. The current staff, aside from Mizzou, only beats the better teams on the schedule when the offense is good (1 year).

 

[bladerunnr]

Meh. Not a perfect rating system but trends are clear. The MWC was substantially stronger years ago. The current staff, aside from Mizzou, only beats the better teams on the schedule when the offense is good (1 year).

Compared to what? The Pac 12? Pac 12 has been terrible for years. How about the big 12, with the mighty 2016 Iowa state team? There are a few dominant teams in some of the P5 conferences and a whole lot of bad teams. Any rating system that places our 2016 team below a 7-6 csewe team is seriously flawed. Just because you play a good team and get your ass kicked should not give you a higher rating. That's exactly what Sagarin does. Completely worthless.

 

[Poke in New England]

Here is the final 2016 Sagarin ratings
'
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/

Note that Csewe, a team we crushed, had a higher rating than us. We finished with a Sagarin rating of 78, below 3-9 Iowa state (#71). Just complete nonsense to use this idiotic rating service to make an argument.

There are several metrics that indicate 2016 was a mediocre team. Remember, we lost to Eastern Michigan (6-6), needed 3OT to beat Northern Illinois (5-7) at home and backed into the conference championship game with two atrocious MW losses thanks to Air Force beating Boise State. Lost that and the bowl game for a total of 6 losses. Despite having NFL talent, the defense was as bad then as the offense is now. I wouldn't be so sure that the ranking is total bunk.

SP+ is a metric not based on resume or wins and losses but statistical measures that predict success in football.

https://twitter.com/YesRun_/status/1201669954531155969

Along with the point in the Tweet above, this metric tells us that any success with DC was fools gold and that the real comparison for the modern era is Bohl vs Glenn. Besides the Mountain West being significantly better during Glenn, both inherited the program in a bad place. Bohl bottomed out before improving while Glenn did not, but Bohl's highest rated team beats out Glenn's by a tiny margin.

https://collegefootballdata.com/sp/trends

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Meh. Not a perfect rating system but trends are clear. The MWC was substantially stronger years ago. The current staff, aside from Mizzou, only beats the better teams on the schedule when the offense is good (1 year).

Compared to what? The Pac 12? Pac 12 has been terrible for years. How about the big 12, with the mighty 2016 Iowa state team? There are a few dominant teams in some of the P5 conferences and a whole lot of bad teams. Any rating system that places our 2016 team below a 7-6 csewe team is seriously flawed. Just because you play a good team and get your ass kicked should not give you a higher rating. That's exactly what Sagarin does. Completely worthless.

MWC a few years ago was substantially better than MWC today. The current staff struggles to beat the better teams on the schedule.

Joe Glenn would have been good for 5 to 7 wins each year with the schedule the past 6 years. Speculation, of course, but not an unreasonable speculation.

 

[calpoke25]

I never said Sagarin was great but for an all encompassing metric across time I think it does a fairly OK job. And yes the top 50 are 1-50 and top 75 51-75.

The 2016 team Basically went on a hot streak in the middle of the season but was otherwise average to below average, which I think is a fair assessment with Sagarin ratings.

The main point here is just how far the MW has fallen in terms of conference strength. We’ve gone from a league where our top team is often top 5-10 with 3 teams in the top 25 and the bottom of the league in the low 100s (in an 8-9 team league) to now a situation where we maybe have 1-2 top 25 teams and the bottom of the league in the 150s.

 

[WyoBrandX]

Meh. Not a perfect rating system but trends are clear. The MWC was substantially stronger years ago. The current staff, aside from Mizzou, only beats the better teams on the schedule when the offense is good (1 year).

Compared to what? The Pac 12? Pac 12 has been terrible for years. How about the big 12, with the mighty 2016 Iowa state team? There are a few dominant teams in some of the P5 conferences and a whole lot of bad teams. Any rating system that places our 2016 team below a 7-6 csewe team is seriously flawed. Just because you play a good team and get your ass kicked should not give you a higher rating. That's exactly what Sagarin does. Completely worthless.

MWC a few years ago was substantially better than MWC today. The current staff struggles to beat the better teams on the schedule.

Joe Glenn would have been good for 5 to 7 wins each year with the schedule the past 6 years. Speculation, of course, but not an unreasonable speculation.

Joe could certainly coach a team up. I think his biggest flaws were in recruiting talent. He did pretty good with other coaches players. Earlier years were greater than later years. That 2008 defense blew.

Bohl basically said - we aren't running this mizzou offense, we are running this old fangled thing, and has done a pretty solid job of recruiting for it.

While the schemes are different, Tiller and Bohl's recruiting philosophies are similar. Find some cold weather / rural players that want to be here, develop them, and use that to your advantage.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Meh. Not a perfect rating system but trends are clear. The MWC was substantially stronger years ago. The current staff, aside from Mizzou, only beats the better teams on the schedule when the offense is good (1 year).

Compared to what? The Pac 12? Pac 12 has been terrible for years. How about the big 12, with the mighty 2016 Iowa state team? There are a few dominant teams in some of the P5 conferences and a whole lot of bad teams. Any rating system that places our 2016 team below a 7-6 csewe team is seriously flawed. Just because you play a good team and get your ass kicked should not give you a higher rating. That's exactly what Sagarin does. Completely worthless.

MWC a few years ago was substantially better than MWC today. The current staff struggles to beat the better teams on the schedule.

Joe Glenn would have been good for 5 to 7 wins each year with the schedule the past 6 years. Speculation, of course, but not an unreasonable speculation.

Joe could certainly coach a team up. I think his biggest flaws were in recruiting talent. He did pretty good with other coaches players. Earlier years were greater than later years. That 2008 defense blew.

Bohl basically said - we aren't running this mizzou offense, we are running this old fangled thing, and has done a pretty solid job of recruiting for it.

While the schemes are different, Tiller and Bohl's recruiting philosophies are similar. Find some cold weather / rural players that want to be here, develop them, and use that to your advantage.

Good post. Another similarity between Bohl and Tiller was encouraging the walk-on and then giving schollys to walk-ons that proved themselves. This has provided Wyoming with so much extra depth. I expect that Brett Brenton will be awarded a scholly after this season.

 

[bladerunnr]

Here is the final 2016 Sagarin ratings
'
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/

Note that Csewe, a team we crushed, had a higher rating than us. We finished with a Sagarin rating of 78, below 3-9 Iowa state (#71). Just complete nonsense to use this idiotic rating service to make an argument.

There are several metrics that indicate 2016 was a mediocre team. Remember, we lost to Eastern Michigan (6-6), needed 3OT to beat Northern Illinois (5-7) at home and backed into the conference championship game with two atrocious MW losses thanks to Air Force beating Boise State. Lost that and the bowl game for a total of 6 losses. Despite having NFL talent, the defense was as bad then as the offense is now. I wouldn't be so sure that the ranking is total bunk.

SP+ is a metric not based on resume or wins and losses but statistical measures that predict success in football.

https://twitter.com/YesRun_/status/1201669954531155969

Along with the point in the Tweet above, this metric tells us that any success with DC was fools gold and that the real comparison for the modern era is Bohl vs Glenn. Besides the Mountain West being significantly better during Glenn, both inherited the program in a bad place. Bohl bottomed out before improving while Glenn did not, but Bohl's highest rated team beats out Glenn's by a tiny margin.

https://collegefootballdata.com/sp/trends

Sorry. But that is complete horseshit. Northern Illinois was in the orange bowl the prior year and expected to be very good again. Yes, we lost to Eastern Michigan and Nebraska. Do you remember Josh Allen played 2 series of downs the prior year? He threw 5 picks in the Nebraska game. But then he improved rapidly. The defense was just fine until we lost both Chase Appleby and Carl Granderson to season ending injuries in the Air Force game.
And, we did not back into the conference championship game. We knew before we even took the field against New Mexico that Boise lost.
This revisionist history regarding Joe Glenn is fascinating. In six years, Glenn's teams won a grand total of 15 conference games. Five were in 2006, the only year we had a winning conference record. The other 5 years we averaged 2 conference wins a year. Yes, the conference was tougher. And we got curb stomped many times. We lost several games by 30 points or more. As much as I'm disappointed by Bohl, he's Bill Bellichek compared to Glenn.

 

[Poke in New England]

Here is the final 2016 Sagarin ratings
'
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2016/team/

Note that Csewe, a team we crushed, had a higher rating than us. We finished with a Sagarin rating of 78, below 3-9 Iowa state (#71). Just complete nonsense to use this idiotic rating service to make an argument.

There are several metrics that indicate 2016 was a mediocre team. Remember, we lost to Eastern Michigan (6-6), needed 3OT to beat Northern Illinois (5-7) at home and backed into the conference championship game with two atrocious MW losses thanks to Air Force beating Boise State. Lost that and the bowl game for a total of 6 losses. Despite having NFL talent, the defense was as bad then as the offense is now. I wouldn't be so sure that the ranking is total bunk.

SP+ is a metric not based on resume or wins and losses but statistical measures that predict success in football.

https://twitter.com/YesRun_/status/1201669954531155969

Along with the point in the Tweet above, this metric tells us that any success with DC was fools gold and that the real comparison for the modern era is Bohl vs Glenn. Besides the Mountain West being significantly better during Glenn, both inherited the program in a bad place. Bohl bottomed out before improving while Glenn did not, but Bohl's highest rated team beats out Glenn's by a tiny margin.

https://collegefootballdata.com/sp/trends

Sorry. But that is complete horseshit. Northern Illinois was in the orange bowl the prior year and expected to be very good again. Yes, we lost to Eastern Michigan and Nebraska. Do you remember Josh Allen played 2 series of downs the prior year? He threw 5 picks in the Nebraska game. But then he improved rapidly. The defense was just fine until we lost both Chase Appleby and Carl Granderson to season ending injuries in the Air Force game.
And, we did not back into the conference championship game. We knew before we even took the field against New Mexico that Boise lost.
This revisionist history regarding Joe Glenn is fascinating. In six years, Glenn's teams won a grand total of 15 conference games. Five were in 2006, the only year we had a winning conference record. The other 5 years we averaged 2 conference wins a year. Yes, the conference was tougher. And we got curb stomped many times. We lost several games by 30 points or more. As much as I'm disappointed by Bohl, he's Bill Bellichek compared to Glenn.

I'm not writing any revisionist history. The OP used a common metric to compare the last three Wyoming coaches and I referenced another that also doesn't love the 2016 team. My only other point is that the only worthy comparison is Glenn vs Bohl. Never gave the nod to one over the other. I appreciate that we don't get blown out under Bohl. But look at the last 4 seasons and swap out games against Nevada, Utah State and San Jose State with Utah, BYU, TCU. There would be some Glenn-like records and some blowouts. I remember all the things you remember about 2016 and before. It was a team with multiple flaws that lost head-scratching games. That's the Bohl story so far.

Also: Northern Illinois made the Orange Bowl in 2012. A long time before we played them.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches for the past 25 years based on results, competition and state of the program:
1) Tiller
2) Bohl
3) Dimel
4) Glenn
5) DC
6) Koenning

Here is how I subjectively rate our coaches based on likability and pride of them representing the program for the past 25 years:
1) Glenn
2) Tiller
3) Bohl
4) Koenning
(big gap)
5) Dimel
6) DC