2 year span
Billy G - 40-27
Pope - 43-24
Different eras so maybe hard to compare but when it comes to wins and losses the two years aren't that much different.
A too simplistic approach to compare simply based on records.
1) Pope has faced a much tougher schedule than BCG ever did! Tougher schedule for any team that is not a top 2-3 team (and even can for those) means more losses. If we assume the SEC-T plays out by seeding as does the NCAA-T (UK goes 2-2), that would make Pope 44-25. Of those 69 games, I count
41-44 (depending on Auburn, Texas & Indiana getting in) games vs NCAA-T teams. Compare that to BCG's 67 games, played vs
19 games vs NCAA-T teams. That isn't even a close comparison!!!
2) Injuries, some claim as an excuse, but you can't deny they are/can-be a big factor. Now BCG also had injuries, BCG's 1st season he lost FR-Patterson for 6 games, SO-Jasper for 11, and SO-Meeks for 20 (although really the 11 he played he was playing hurt, so pretty much the whole season. That level of injuries is comparable to what Pope has faced either year. But in BCG's 2nd year, the team was pretty healthy (Patterson missed 2 games, & Harris missed 5).
Pick any top 10 team, remove the 2nd & 4th & 6th best players and see how they will do? They would be about where we are now. Pick the hated #1 Duke (removing Evans, Ngbonga & Sarr), leaving them with Boozer, Foster, other-Boozer, Brown, Khamenia, and they might not be ranked (unless Boozer went for 30+/gm). They would have a better record than we do because the ACC is not as good as the SEC.
All that said, is there or should there be worry & skepticism on Pope? Yes, absolutely. But I think you have to give him a 3rd year to see if he can turn it around (revealing it was mostly due to bad luck/injuries), or confirm our concerns.