To avoid derailing a thread, 5-6 years? Really?

[TSpoke]

I think the main theme of the conversation is being interpreted incorrectly. This isn't about impatience with Bohl or about earning the NY6 bid now.

We're now seasoned vets (unfortunately) at this rebuilding process. From VK to Joe to DC, we've been through this for over a decade.

What I'm getting at is that in a VERY WEAK MWC, my opinion is that if we do not see signs of success within 3-4 years, I believe that is an indication that we have deep rooted issues that are not coaching related.

The trajectory I would like to see is (obviously becoming overnight sensations would be great but unrealistic):
This year is a pass, but depending on bounces, we might even get a bowl game this year. Experience year mostly.
Bowl game in year 3. Solidly earned not "backed into"
Very solid years in 4 and 5 (say 8+ wins)
Years 5-6 should be at least challenging BSU (assuming they stay on track). BSU is a T25 to T10 program fairly consistently. Being a legit challenge to them is all you can really hope for because if you are challenging them, that means you are T25 to T10 material.

We will likely experience a down year in there as well, but that is okay as long as the down year is because we graduate a bunch of studs that won a bunch of games the previous year.

If we see another false hope bowl game followed by a down season or two, my concern level will increase drastically.

I don't think you will get a disagreement from anyone on here.

 

[JimmyDimes]

I think the main theme of the conversation is being interpreted incorrectly. This isn't about impatience with Bohl or about earning the NY6 bid now.

We're now seasoned vets (unfortunately) at this rebuilding process. From VK to Joe to DC, we've been through this for over a decade.

What I'm getting at is that in a VERY WEAK MWC, my opinion is that if we do not see signs of success within 3-4 years, I believe that is an indication that we have deep rooted issues that are not coaching related.

The trajectory I would like to see is (obviously becoming overnight sensations would be great but unrealistic):
This year is a pass, but depending on bounces, we might even get a bowl game this year. Experience year mostly.
Bowl game in year 3. Solidly earned not "backed into"
Very solid years in 4 and 5 (say 8+ wins)
Years 5-6 should be at least challenging BSU (assuming they stay on track). BSU is a T25 to T10 program fairly consistently. Being a legit challenge to them is all you can really hope for because if you are challenging them, that means you are T25 to T10 material.

We will likely experience a down year in there as well, but that is okay as long as the down year is because we graduate a bunch of studs that won a bunch of games the previous year.

If we see another false hope bowl game followed by a down season or two, my concern level will increase drastically.

I'm guilty for misinterpreting the theme of this thread. I agree 100% if we can't get over the hump with Bohl then there is something else wrong that is deeper than the coaching staff.

My optimistic side (which is there 90% of the time) tells me we can go to a bowl this year.....hopefully not back into a bowl, but go to a bowl with 7 or more wins. It is a down MWC and the only mountain to climb is to get to Boise. The other teams are all beatable. And who knows, maybe Boise takes a step back with a new QB and their new coaching staff in year two. It took Fresno a couple years to slide with their new coaching staff.

Go Pokes!

 

[J-Rod]

Boise State and San Diego State have been out-recruiting the MW...creating a solid gap. Long can't coach well, but he knows how to get his players. They'll be contenders for the foreseeable future. Boise is only getting more talented under this new staff, and just flat out coaches better (see Petersen losing 6 games with 5 All-Americans on his roster at UW). The best has yet to come for BSU under this staff. Those two, particularly BSU, have created a talent gap, potentially a significant talent gap. I'm curious to see SDSU in the 2015/2016...they've done very well on the recruiting trail.

Outside of those two, nobody else in the MW has impressed me with their recent recruiting trends. Every other team gets a guy here and there that impresses, but not a consistent class. And before you say it, yes I'm ignoring SJSU. They're recruiting guys that won't qualify, bottom line. If it looks fishy and smells fishy, it's because it is.

 

[SnowyRange]

A couple of points:

1. The standard "4-5 years" isn't so much used to refer to a win-loss record, but has to do with judging a new coach. There's of course an interrelationship, but that commonly cited time frame is just a recognition that it takes that long to judge the coach.

2. That time frame is not set in stone, either. It takes judgment (at the end of every year, really) to decide the ultimate questions: "Are we at least heading in the right direction? Are we treading water? Or are we losing ground?" It's a tricky business, because it depends on so many more factors than wins and losses (though of course wins and losses can force an AD's hand).

3. The fact that the MWC is "down" -- whatever that means -- is irrelevant. It doesn't make things any easier for Bohl, as every other school is trying to do exactly what we are trying to do.

 

[JimmyDimes]

Boise State and San Diego State have been out-recruiting the MW...creating a solid gap. Long can't coach well, but he knows how to get his players. They'll be contenders for the foreseeable future. Boise is only getting more talented under this new staff, and just flat out coaches better (see Petersen losing 6 games with 5 All-Americans on his roster at UW). The best has yet to come for BSU under this staff. Those two, particularly BSU, have created a talent gap, potentially a significant talent gap. I'm curious to see SDSU in the 2015/2016...they've done very well on the recruiting trail.

Outside of those two, nobody else in the MW has impressed me with their recent recruiting trends. Every other team gets a guy here and there that impresses, but not a consistent class. And before you say it, yes I'm ignoring SJSU. They're recruiting guys that won't qualify, bottom line. If it looks fishy and smells fishy, it's because it is.

I think Boise takes a step back and I think you give SDSU too much credit. Rocky Long is a solid coach who has taken SDSU as far as he can.....which is farther than most of their previous coaches, but they still aren't challenging for titles.

Recruiting is overrated.......sure it is good to get some of the more athletic, higher ranking guys, but if they don't get developed they won't get any better.

 

[J-Rod]

I think Boise takes a step back and I think you give SDSU too much credit. Rocky Long is a solid coach who has taken SDSU as far as he can.....which is farther than most of their previous coaches, but they still aren't challenging for titles.

Recruiting is overrated.......sure it is good to get some of the more athletic, higher ranking guys, but if they don't get developed they won't get any better.

Fair enough, we can disagree....I will say though, a lot of more informed people greatly disagree with you. Boise is projected to possibly go undefeated in 2015. They are ridiculously loaded. SDSU is recruiting at another level...time will tell if those players develop. They're the favorite in the West, and will be for the foreseeable future. They landed a few freaks that would have us geeked out if they had chosen UW instead.

Recruiting is overrated: things only said by the fan of teams that don't win big. Sorry, but it's simply the truth. If Wyoming landed a 4-Star recruit tomorrow, we'd be gushing over the kid.

Team's that win big don't think high-level recruiting is overrated. The team's that recruit no-named prospects and try to win big are 0-for-everything.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I think Boise takes a step back and I think you give SDSU too much credit. Rocky Long is a solid coach who has taken SDSU as far as he can.....which is farther than most of their previous coaches, but they still aren't challenging for titles.

Recruiting is overrated.......sure it is good to get some of the more athletic, higher ranking guys, but if they don't get developed they won't get any better.

Fair enough, we can disagree....I will say though, a lot of more informed people greatly disagree with you. Boise is projected to possibly go undefeated in 2015. They are ridiculously loaded. SDSU is recruiting at another level...time will tell if those players develop. They're the favorite in the West, and will be for the foreseeable future. They landed a few freaks that would have us geeked out if they had chosen UW instead.

Recruiting is overrated: things only said by the fan of teams that don't win big. Sorry, but it's simply the truth. If Wyoming landed a 4-Star recruit tomorrow, we'd be gushing over the kid.

Team's that win big don't think high-level recruiting is overrated. The team's that recruit no-named prospects and try to win big are 0-for-everything.

I'd have to agree. While recruiting a bunch of 5-stars isn't going to win you a national championship without some development, a gameplan and team chemistry, it will still win you some games. I can almost guarantee that if you gave me a team of 5-star prospects I could challenge for a MWC championship; and my football knowledge is pretty good, but nowhere near the level of a college coach.

So to an extent, recruiting isn't the end all be all, but on the other hand talent matters.

Another point to consider, college coaches don't do a lot of "teaching" on the field. The big changes occur in the film room and the weight room. If you don't pick up your game on the field you get left behind.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

3. The fact that the MWC is "down" -- whatever that means -- is irrelevant. It doesn't make things any easier for Bohl, as every other school is trying to do exactly what we are trying to do.

Umm, what? Of course it matters and makes things easier for Bohl. Getting wins, building a program, going to bowl games, etc. is a hell of lot easier against the current MWC than when Utah, byu, and TCU were in. The MWC was about 1000X stronger. The hurdle was much higher.

One of my big problems with Burman. He was stating that how the big 3 leaving would help us be more competitive because of budgets. Then guess what, everyone started passing us in budgets. Even with that, we are still closer in budget to the top than we have ever been.

Climbing to the upper end of this heaping pile isn't even half as daunting as climbing to the top of the MWC in the "glory days". To imply otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I think Boise takes a step back and I think you give SDSU too much credit. Rocky Long is a solid coach who has taken SDSU as far as he can.....which is farther than most of their previous coaches, but they still aren't challenging for titles.

Recruiting is overrated.......sure it is good to get some of the more athletic, higher ranking guys, but if they don't get developed they won't get any better.

Fair enough, we can disagree....I will say though, a lot of more informed people greatly disagree with you. Boise is projected to possibly go undefeated in 2015. They are ridiculously loaded. SDSU is recruiting at another level...time will tell if those players develop. They're the favorite in the West, and will be for the foreseeable future. They landed a few freaks that would have us geeked out if they had chosen UW instead.

Recruiting is overrated: things only said by the fan of teams that don't win big. Sorry, but it's simply the truth. If Wyoming landed a 4-Star recruit tomorrow, we'd be gushing over the kid.

Team's that win big don't think high-level recruiting is overrated. The team's that recruit no-named prospects and try to win big are 0-for-everything.

It has been several years, but I remember on the MWC board, we looked at this. Some of us dug up old recruiting evaluations on the All-Conference performers. By far the majority were 3 star or better.

Granted a lot goes into that (coaching, a team's previous success, etc.), it was still an indication that the star rating seemed to correlate. Coincidentally, the teams placing the most on the all conference rosters were the teams that were winning. I agree with J-Rod on this.

 

[JimmyDimes]

Out of curiosity I checked the ranking for last years 1st team. Couldn't find info on all players, but here is a quick and dirty

Offense - 3 3* guys...Ajai, Pumphrey, and Haper. The rest were 2* guys and walk ons. Grayson is list in both the 2010 and 2011 rivals databases....3* in 2010 and 2* in 2011.

Defense - 5 3* guys....Eddie, and 4 others. The rest either 2* or walk-on.

Not quite half.....USU had the most walk-on's and Boise had the most 3* guys.

 

[J-Rod]

The number of stars by themselves can be misleading...the details tell the story.

I used the example a few weeks back...Boise State LB and Fiesta Bowl MVP Tanner Vallejo: 3-Stars. However, he had offers from several Pac-12 schools, and even had Alabama coming after him. That's as close to being an elite recruit without actually being elite.

Compare Vallejo to some random 3-Star commit at say Hawaii....are they the same? They have the same amount of stars. My point is...not all 3-Star players are created equal. Garrett Grayson was only 3-Stars, but he ranked in the Top 25 at his position in high school. That's close to elite.

Brett Smith was only 2-Stars coming out of Salem....BUT, he was ranked in the Top 80 at QB coming out of high school by Scout. He wasn't a complete unknown. If you're in the Top 100 at your position coming out of high school (Hello, C.J. Johnson)....you have the potential to be pretty damn good. You need a team loaded with guys ranked in the Top 100 at their position to be good/great.

The system isn't flawless or perfect, but it does make the difference.

Good news? Bohl is offering those types of players this spring. Lots of them. From the research I've done, he's offered very few "diamond in the roughs" this spring.

 

[joshvanklomp]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ryanholmgren/status/592045739418591233[/tweet]

 

[Wyo2dal]

The foundation of any great program takes 2-3 years and we are in year 2. Now another 2-3 years of Bowl games every year starting next year maybe this year but doubtful so anyway you look at it 5-6 years is even what the coach has in mind without saying it outright.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

so anyway you look at it 5-6 years is even what the coach has in mind without saying it outright.

5-6 years for what, though? To beat BSU? Since they are an anomaly, it could be argued, we might not ever get there or we might be competitive but still lose. T25?

What is the metric for 5-6 years? How do we know we are there?

Is it 2nd or 3rd place with 9 wins and a NM Bowl or Poinsettia Bowl victory?

Point being, the latter should be in the realm of 3-4 years.

 

[Wyo2dal]

so anyway you look at it 5-6 years is even what the coach has in mind without saying it outright.

5-6 years for what, though? To beat BSU? Since they are an anomaly, it could be argued, we might not ever get there or we might be competitive but still lose. T25?

What is the metric for 5-6 years? How do we know we are there?

Is it 2nd or 3rd place with 9 wins and a NM Bowl or Poinsettia Bowl victory?

Point being, the latter should be in the realm of 3-4 years.

Competing for Conference Titles. There is no one on here that thinks it's going to be 5+ years to get to a Bowl Game and no one ever said that. But to be the top dog in the conference regularly and compete for a conference title yearly it will take that. Now outside of that we are likely to never see a NY6 Bowl.

 

[joshvanklomp]

The hangup here seems to be less about the number of years and more about the level of success fans and coaches are looking for in that timeframe.

If the question was "how long before we can finish in the top half of the Mountain West" it's possible that 5-6 years is a bit excessive. However, I don't think that's the question being asked. The question is about building a program, not just one year of success. That does take longer to build, so I don't think 5-6 years is out of the question.

Could it happen sooner? Sure, and I hope it does.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Competing for Conference Titles. There is no one on here that thinks it's going to be 5+ years to get to a Bowl Game and no one ever said that. But to be the top dog in the conference regularly and compete for a conference title yearly it will take that. Now outside of that we are likely to never see a NY6 Bowl.

I guess my point is that I don't expect a significant increase in competitiveness from years 3-4 to 5-6. I think by the time you hit that 4th year mark, you have a pretty good indication of where things are going to be.

Urban Meyer made immediate impacts and built a powerhouse in 2 short years at Utah. He laid a foundation that the Utes were able to sustain success.

Gary Patterson took 1 year at TCU then took that program to the top (a down year here or there but overall). It took him 2 short years to adjust to Big12 play.

With the limitations of our AD, I don't expect Bohl to do the same. Sans BSU, however, a lightning in the bottle hire should run roughshod over this conference in a few short years. Even a program that is destined to be a very solid program should establish itself in 3-4 years.

 

[Wyo2dal]

Competing for Conference Titles. There is no one on here that thinks it's going to be 5+ years to get to a Bowl Game and no one ever said that. But to be the top dog in the conference regularly and compete for a conference title yearly it will take that. Now outside of that we are likely to never see a NY6 Bowl.

I guess my point is that I don't expect a significant increase in competitiveness from years 3-4 to 5-6. I think by the time you hit that 4th year mark, you have a pretty good indication of where things are going to be.

Urban Meyer made immediate impacts and built a powerhouse in 2 short years at Utah. He laid a foundation that the Utes were able to sustain success.

Gary Patterson took 1 year at TCU then took that program to the top (a down year here or there but overall). It took him 2 short years to adjust to Big12 play.

With the limitations of our AD, I don't expect Bohl to do the same. Sans BSU, however, a lightning in the bottle hire should run roughshod over this conference in a few short years. Even a program that is destined to be a very solid program should establish itself in 3-4 years.

Those are schools that are easy to recruit to and have absolutely nothing in common with Wyoming and you can not use them to compare time frames. I do not for even one second believe any of those coaches could make Wyoming top 25 in the same 2-3 year time frame.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

How about Jim M. at CSU? 10-3 in third year.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Gary Anderson USU? Year 4, 11-2 and T25?