Craig Bohl's Legacy

[bullbugle307]

Got bored, and got started looking at the total percentage of our conference win's that came against AF, CSU, NM, SDSU, and UNLV from 03 to 23.

Learned a few things, but that’s it. Lots of confounding things I would have to think about a lot more to draw any conclusions. Thought it would be simple. It’s not.

The switch from 7 to 8 conference games a year is HUGE in this discussion though. That happened in 2012. That alone makes comparing conference wins across that 20 year time frame more complicated. One could argue Bohl should have won more conference games per year than Glenn since he played in more conference games per year minus the Covid year. One could also argue those other teams had the opportunity to do so also. DC has his tenure split between 7 and 8 game conference seasons.

Starting in 2013, we went from playing those 5 teams every year to generally only 3 times a year.

But we started playing USU, SJSU, Nevada, and Hawaii a lot more. Not historically good teams in the MWC.

I think it’s time to give it up. Too many variables changed to for my simple brain to draw conclusions. Honestly, I’m leaning towards Bohl got more conference wins because he played worse conference opponents. But I wouldn’t stake much on it.

Honestly, I don’t think any of us are applying the data correctly to our arguments, so we should just stop.

[ragtimejoe1]

DC's last year was pretty damn close to several of Bohl's years.

As we discussed, DC left a program in tatters. Excluding Bohl's first 2 years, please point me to a season where Bohl's teams utterly got their asses handed to them losing to Texas State by 21, Colorado State by 30, San Jose State, Fresno by 38, Bose by 41 and Utah State by 28.

@ (18) Nebraska Big Ten L 34 37 0 1 L 1

@ Texas State Sun Belt L 21 42 3 2 L 1

Colorado State MWC L 22 52 4 3 L 1

@ San Jose State MWC L 44 51 4 4 L 2

(17) Fresno State MWC L 10 48 4 5 L 3

@ Boise State MWC L 7 48 4 6 L 4

@ Utah State MWC L 7 35 5 7 L 1

Why do we get to exclude bad years for Bohl?

Seems like 2018 we got smashed more than a few times.

[307bball]

Got bored, and got started looking at the total percentage of our conference win's that came against AF, CSU, NM, SDSU, and UNLV from 03 to 23.

Learned a few things, but that’s it. Lots of confounding things I would have to think about a lot more to draw any conclusions. Thought it would be simple. It’s not.

The switch from 7 to 8 conference games a year is HUGE in this discussion though. That happened in 2012. That alone makes comparing conference wins across that 20 year time frame more complicated. One could argue Bohl should have won more conference games per year than Glenn since he played in more conference games per year minus the Covid year. One could also argue those other teams had the opportunity to do so also. DC has his tenure split between 7 and 8 game conference seasons.

Starting in 2013, we went from playing those 5 teams every year to generally only 3 times a year.

But we started playing USU, SJSU, Nevada, and Hawaii a lot more. Not historically good teams in the MWC.

I think it’s time to give it up. Too many variables changed to for my simple brain to draw conclusions. Honestly, I’m leaning towards Bohl got more conference wins because he played worse conference opponents. But I wouldn’t stake much on it.

Honestly, I don’t think any of us are applying the data correctly to our arguments, so we should just stop.

I missed the 7 game conference schedule.... But it was only in effect in 2000 through 2004 and then one year in 2011.... That means for the stronger conference years.... We missed out on 5 possible victories.... Also confounding this is the Covid year.

But we started playing USU, SJSU, Nevada, and Hawaii a lot more. Not historically good teams in the MWC.

... So did the rest of the conference members that were in both eras of the MWC.


Nonetheless... All of those teams analyzed were all under those same conditions.... Again... I'm comparing the success rate between the same group of teams across time where something (conference strength) changed during that time.

[bullbugle307]

Looks like I missed some stuff with the number of conference games too.

But honestly, there’s still so many changing variables that I don’t think affected all teams equally, especially in Bohls tenure. Divisions, no divisions, teams not playing the same suite of teams as those teams they are being compared to etc.

It’s all a bunch of mental masturbation IMO at this point.

[307bball]

Got bored, and got started looking at the total percentage of our conference win's that came against AF, CSU, NM, SDSU, and UNLV from 03 to 23.

Learned a few things, but that’s it. Lots of confounding things I would have to think about a lot more to draw any conclusions. Thought it would be simple. It’s not.

I've done the same....and you are right...it's not simple and beyond my attention span to try and make sense of it.

I tried to simplify as best I could...I just thought about the question of conference strength and how it would be predicted to affect wins. It's a tough question. Whatever is happening that is causing a conference to become stronger or weaker is obviously affecting it's members right? Otherwise what is the point?

Bohl had many detractors...I even dabbled in Bohl-detracting myself. Among the reasons to not like him...one of them never sat well with me. It was the theory that Bohl's win totals shouldn't be respected because the conference is terrible. Well...the effect of the change in conference strength shouldn't be that hard to see. After all 6 teams played the same schedules and the reduction in conference strength happened precipitously from 2012 through 2015. From there it's easy to just separate them into to categories...those same programs before that time period and after that time period. Don't consider OOC games because that introduces a factor that is not consistent across that group of teams. Is it perfect?...undoubtedly not...I don't think it's worthless though.

[307bball]

Looks like I missed some stuff with the number of conference games too.

But honestly, there’s still so many changing variables that I don’t think affected all teams equally, especially in Bohls tenure. Divisions, no divisions, teams not playing the same suite of teams as those teams they are being compared to etc.

It’s all a bunch of mental masturbation IMO at this point.

hehe...excellent characterisation of most of the discussions on here .

The change to the division format may have some effect...though it should go against the teams that had to play BSU every year....

Anyways...again...I'm trying not to make a sweeping conclusion except to say that Boh'ls success is not explicable by just playing worse teams. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Bohl but that is not one of them.

[ragtimejoe1]

Looks like I missed some stuff with the number of conference games too.

But honestly, there’s still so many changing variables that I don’t think affected all teams equally, especially in Bohls tenure. Divisions, no divisions, teams not playing the same suite of teams as those teams they are being compared to etc.

It’s all a bunch of mental masturbation IMO at this point.

hehe...excellent characterisation of most of the discussions on here .

The change to the division format may have some effect...though it should go against the teams that had to play BSU every year....

Anyways...again...I'm trying not to make a sweeping conclusion except to say that Boh'ls success is not explicable by just playing worse teams. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Bohl but that is not one of them.

That's where you're misinterpreting at least my contention. Bohl built a team that could consistently beat teams that rank x (I'll do some stats when I get time) and lower while rarely beating teams ranked y or higher in a given year. All coaches do just the x and y are different.

The weaker schedules get more x teams than y teams which helps wins. Bohl most certainly benefitted from extremely weak schedules but he still had to have a team that could beat cupcakes.

[307bball]

hehe...excellent characterisation of most of the discussions on here .

The change to the division format may have some effect...though it should go against the teams that had to play BSU every year....

Anyways...again...I'm trying not to make a sweeping conclusion except to say that Boh'ls success is not explicable by just playing worse teams. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Bohl but that is not one of them.

That's where you're misinterpreting at least my contention. Bohl built a team that could consistently beat teams that rank x (I'll do some stats when I get time) and lower while rarely beating teams ranked y or higher in a given year. All coaches do just the x and y are different.

The weaker schedules get more x teams than y teams which helps wins. Bohl most certainly benefitted from extremely weak schedules but he still had to have a team that could beat cupcakes.

I think we are actually getting some clarity on what everybody thinks on this topic. You have certainly clarified for me how you are approaching this and .... I agree w/you far more than I disagree. The one disagreement is how to contextualize conference strength changing over time....but I may not totally understand you.

I think the mistake would be to say some version of the following.

Coach A beat 100% of the teams played below the threshold of X. Coach B beat 70% of the teams played below the threshold of X. Therefore if you switched them, those percentages would hold. You could change it to be above or below or whatever.

Its a version of the transitive fallacy when you beat an opponent that beat somebody else so you assume you are better than the opponent you have not played.

The more you slice and dice the categories.....the less conclusions you'll be able to draw. If I was going to do it...I would just do win percentage vs top and bottom half of FBS according to SRS or some other end of year aggregate rating. You could convince me to add a third category ... top 20 or so. It's very susceptible to bias according to how you sample it.

[ragtimejoe1]

That's where you're misinterpreting at least my contention. Bohl built a team that could consistently beat teams that rank x (I'll do some stats when I get time) and lower while rarely beating teams ranked y or higher in a given year. All coaches do just the x and y are different.

The weaker schedules get more x teams than y teams which helps wins. Bohl most certainly benefitted from extremely weak schedules but he still had to have a team that could beat cupcakes.

I think we are actually getting some clarity on what everybody thinks on this topic. You have certainly clarified for me how you are approaching this and .... I agree w/you far more than I disagree. The one disagreement is how to contextualize conference strength changing over time....but I may not totally understand you.

I think the mistake would be to say some version of the following.

Coach A beat 100% of the teams played below the threshold of X. Coach B beat 70% of the teams played below the threshold of X. Therefore if you switched them, those percentages would hold. You could change it to be above or below or whatever.

Its a version of the transitive fallacy when you beat an opponent that beat somebody else so you assume you are better than the opponent you have not played.

The more you slice and dice the categories.....the less conclusions you'll be able to draw. If I was going to do it...I would just do win percentage vs top and bottom half of FBS according to SRS or some other end of year aggregate rating. You could convince me to add a third category ... top 20 or so. It's very susceptible to bias according to how you sample it.

I don't disagree.

I'd I get time, I'll try to crunch it. I think you have to be careful with averages because the Josh Allen x and y are not the same as year 2018 x and y. However, there are a few stat things that can be done.

[OrediggerPoke]

As we discussed, DC left a program in tatters. Excluding Bohl's first 2 years, please point me to a season where Bohl's teams utterly got their asses handed to them losing to Texas State by 21, Colorado State by 30, San Jose State, Fresno by 38, Bose by 41 and Utah State by 28.

@ (18) Nebraska Big Ten L 34 37 0 1 L 1

@ Texas State Sun Belt L 21 42 3 2 L 1

Colorado State MWC L 22 52 4 3 L 1

@ San Jose State MWC L 44 51 4 4 L 2

(17) Fresno State MWC L 10 48 4 5 L 3

@ Boise State MWC L 7 48 4 6 L 4

@ Utah State MWC L 7 35 5 7 L 1

Why do we get to exclude bad years for Bohl?

Seems like 2018 we got smashed more than a few times.

How was Bohl supposed to put a competitive team on the field when he first arrived? He was left an awful roster. There was no transfer portal then. The same roster (excluding Brett Smith and a few others) that got their teeth kicked in week and week out in DC’s last year.

[Poke in New England]

This is a ridiculous comparison. DC’s last year was terrible and he left the program in shambles. Bohl had little to build on. After the first 2 years, we were never complete garbage.

DC's last year was pretty damn close to several of Bohl's years.

Now I know for sure that you're trolling. DC couldn't make a bowl game with Brett Smith and a SOS ranked 107th in the country.

[ragtimejoe1]

DC's last year was pretty damn close to several of Bohl's years.

Now I know for sure that you're trolling. DC couldn't make a bowl game with Brett Smith and a SOS ranked 107th in the country.

5-7 is a lot different than 6-6

Of course if you're into point differential, I guess Bohl was blown out a couple games fewer in those mediocre years. Yay!

[OrediggerPoke]

Now I know for sure that you're trolling. DC couldn't make a bowl game with Brett Smith and a SOS ranked 107th in the country.

5-7 is a lot different than 6-6

Of course if you're into point differential, I guess Bohl was blown out a couple games fewer in those mediocre years. Yay!

If you can’t see the difference between DC’s last year and the teams that Bohl put on the field then I don’t know what to tell you. DC’s team literally quit because the program was such a joke and laughed at getting their ass handed to them. I’ve never seen a Bohl team quit.

[ragtimejoe1]

5-7 is a lot different than 6-6

Of course if you're into point differential, I guess Bohl was blown out a couple games fewer in those mediocre years. Yay!

If you can’t see the difference between DC’s last year and the teams that Bohl put on the field then I don’t know what to tell you. DC’s team literally quit because the program was such a joke and laughed at getting their ass handed to them. I’ve never seen a Bohl team quit.

DCs 8 win team was right up there with some of Bohl's better teams. Bohl's team in 2018, covid, and even last year weren't anything to write home about. I forgot, we're also excluding covid year

Bohl ran a much better program in off field metrics and I'd 100 agree that his teams were grittier.

DC was an ass and I'm glad he didn't last another year. From a pure performance analysis, Bohl was better but it's not hugely better.

Do Sawvel and Bohl junior get a 2 year pass?

[OrediggerPoke]

Do Sawvel and Bohl junior get a 2 year pass?

No. The program is completely intact, and, outside of the WR position, we are returning more experience and depth next year than we pretty much ever have. If the team performs like a DC team did in its last year (which I would highly doubt), then that would be massive red flags and a clear indication of the need to wipe the slate clean.

[OrediggerPoke]

DCs 8 win team was right up there with some of Bohl's better teams. Bohl's team in 2018, covid, and even last year weren't anything to write home about. I forgot, we're also excluding covid year

No it wasn't. That 2011 DC team team was blasted by then WAC (and 7-6) Utah State 19-63 and then turned in one of the ugliest bowl performances getting curb stomped by the Temple Owls in Albuquerque.

[LanderPoke]

5-7 is a lot different than 6-6

Of course if you're into point differential, I guess Bohl was blown out a couple games fewer in those mediocre years. Yay!

If you can’t see the difference between DC’s last year and the teams that Bohl put on the field then I don’t know what to tell you. DC’s team literally quit because the program was such a joke and laughed at getting their ass handed to them. I’ve never seen a Bohl team quit.

When Hawaii kicked our asses at home we quit. That was the only time I can remember

[WYO1016]

5-7 is a lot different than 6-6

Of course if you're into point differential, I guess Bohl was blown out a couple games fewer in those mediocre years. Yay!

If you can’t see the difference between DC’s last year and the teams that Bohl put on the field then I don’t know what to tell you. DC’s team literally quit because the program was such a joke and laughed at getting their ass handed to them. I’ve never seen a Bohl team quit.

I remember this well. I believe it was against Utah State that receivers just refused to run a route, DBs didn't tackle, and no one looked like they gave one iota of a damn for the program anymore.

[LawPoke]

I have never put much stock in comparing coaches at UW. So I try not to do it.

I do put a lot of stock in an individual coach's record. As the old adage says, you are what your record says you are. Bohl has a career 61-60 record. He was and always will be a mediocre coach to me. Great coaches win conference titles. Great coaches may have a down year or two while they get their roster settled, but then win...a lot. Great coaches always beat the teams they are supposed to beat and are at least batting .500 against the top of the league as they fight for conference crowns. Great coaches adapt systems to their personnel and can change. Bohl is not a great coach - at least judging from his time at Wyoming. He was serviceable and mostly mediocre.

[307bball]

I have never put much stock in comparing coaches at UW. So I try not to do it.

I do put a lot of stock in an individual coach's record. As the old adage says, you are what your record says you are. Bohl has a career 61-60 record. He was and always will be a mediocre coach to me. Great coaches win conference titles. Great coaches may have a down year or two while they get their roster settled, but then win...a lot. Great coaches always beat the teams they are supposed to beat and are at least batting .500 against the top of the league as they fight for conference crowns. Great coaches adapt systems to their personnel and can change. Bohl is not a great coach - at least judging from his time at Wyoming. He was serviceable and mostly mediocre.

Which, unfortunately, is an upgrade relative to what was going on in Laramie since the year 2000. I don't hear a lot of "greatness" talk when referring to Bohl.

Bohl reset the floor of the program and we are in a precarious spot right now with Bohl retiring. I don't think the level that Bohl was able to maintain came easily. He fought and scrapped to create a respectable program the right way that, once it was running, didn't really backslide. The next era could easily backslide. And once that happens, it is a pit that is really, really hard to dig out of. I don't want a high point of appearing in one championship game and then largely not being in the conversation of the best of the MWC. I don't even want the San Jose State style of success....one championship (Covid year), but otherwise forgettable. I would love to get to the somewhere between what BSU accomplishes and the AFA rate of success...that may be the top end of what you can achieve without any sort of NIL support to speak of.

Interestingly...AFA is a bit like Wyoming with respect to championships and championship game appearance during Bohl's tenure...both teams in the upper half of the conference and only one championship game appearance (loss).