ragtimejoe1 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:17 am
307bball wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:10 am
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.