I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

(07-15-2013 03:33 PM)Ricefan68 Wrote:  I think this board puts way too much into that one statement. There is no way, Baliff or any other coach at the D1 level does not care about winning one of their 11 or 12 games. A signature win like that guarantees a big personal pay day in the future. I know it is fun to debate, but I refuse to believe DB tells his coaches and players to lay an egg in any game. People in these jobs are not programmed that way and his players would have put on a full scale revolt by now if it were any other way. No player would stand for a coach mailing it in on a big game.

There is a difference between playing to win and playing to minimize the score/not lose. In soccer, playing not to lose is sticking 11 men in the box and bunkering down. The attacking alternative is playing for the ball and sending men forward.

Rice tends to play to not lose against good teams. We go uber-conservative with our playcalling, punt on 4th down and play bubble-screen-left-bubble-screen-right.

Both approaches are very different from laying an egg/throwing a game. DB does not do that.

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

People are hoping they are because of Manziel's issues. Being a fan can bring blind optimism in the hope that something unlikely can happen. I hope it happens too...just don't think there is any chance it will.

And do we have to start up on the last question again? Didn't we beat that one into the ground enough earlier this summer?

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

I think the players would love to play those games and they would generate some nice cash for the program. I also think they would prepare us well for in conference play if the team did not lose confidence after a couple of losses. I think this could also help recruiting as HS kids would be excited to play some big name teams.

People will often call these "body bag games" assuming that high ranking opponents tend to lead to more injuries. I do not think the probability of injury increases with the quality of opponent. Tebow never missed a game until he got clocked at Kentucky (Not his toughest opponent). With all that said, I may opt for 2 high profile opponents per year instead of 3, but I like your concept.

(07-15-2013 03:44 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

People are hoping they are because of Manziel's issues. Being a fan can bring blind optimism in the hope that something unlikely can happen. I hope it happens too...just don't think there is any chance it will.

I would like us to be competitive. IMO, if we can hang with the likes of aTm or LSU, then we should be able to run the table in C-USA. Manziel issues or not, aTm is a good team. The best way to get better is to play those that are better than us.

Anyways, I am hopeful because our team looks good. For the first time in a very long time, we look solid defensively, which is a huge plus.

(07-15-2013 03:33 PM)Ricefan68 Wrote:  May also be a way of managing his team for the whole season. If we lost a non-conference game, Goldsmith would always talk about that the conference games were what really mattered. Trust me, Fred wanted to win every game, but he also knew the importance of getting his team focused and motivated for conference after a tough Ohio State loss. Fred was a great coach and he referred to the OSU game as "pre-season." He did the same after an opening day loss to Air Force. With that said, I know his attitude and preparation did not match the "pre-season" words that came out of his mouth. They were only used to help us put a bad loss behind us and refocus on what was in front of us.

I think this board puts way too much into that one statement. There is no way, Baliff or any other coach at the D1 level does not care about winning one of their 11 or 12 games. A signature win like that guarantees a big personal pay day in the future. I know it is fun to debate, but I refuse to believe DB tells his coaches and players to lay an egg in any game. People in these jobs are not programmed that way and his players would have put on a full scale revolt by now if it were any other way. No player would stand for a coach mailing it in on a big game.

Damn straight. That's why all the junk about Bailiff not caring has galled me so, but every time I object somebody wants to change the subject to Kool-Aid. Good to hear that Goldsmith made the same mistake in word choice. If only Bailiff had said "non-conference" instead of "preseason". We could have saved hours of debate.

Thanks for your input on this.

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

The first difference that comes to mind is three minus one equals two.

I think we are good enough to beat A$M, IF a lot of things go our way. I don't think it would happen three times in a row.

(07-15-2013 03:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:42 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  A bigger deal will be what happens in the first half. This guy and this team are ripe to get punched in the mouth in their opener. No reason why a focused, disciplined Rice team can't pull a major upset to start the season. I hope Baliff doesn't treat this game like other openers in the past against big programs and treat them like a pre-season exhibition. Let's go win this one!

He said last night that they had already worked up preliminary game plans for the first three games.

I would expect--and hope--that they have preliminary game plans for all games on the schedule by now. That should precede the process of putting the fall practice schedule, and they should be in the middle of doing that at this point.

I didn't take that to mean they were ignoring the later games, just that more detail had been worked out for the upcoming games.

Watched the A&M Spring Game on ESPN....

Since we can guess at gameplans.....

Strong Side Power
Weak Side Counter
Play Action off Weak Side Counter
Strong Side 3 receiver patterns with emphasis on Hook/Curl zone
Roll the pocket occasionally
Pass/Run mix 60/40

That's my guess for success.

(07-15-2013 05:09 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Watched the A&M Spring Game on ESPN....

Since we can guess at gameplans.....

Strong Side Power
Weak Side Counter
Play Action off Weak Side Counter
Strong Side 3 receiver patterns with emphasis on Hook/Curl zone
Roll the pocket occasionally
Pass/Run mix 60/40

That's my guess for success.

I have not seen their spring game. Do you think there are certain personnel we can exploit or is it their scheme? or both? If two of their starting DB's sit this out for off the field issues it should give our passing game a boost. Anything you picked up that our D may be able to go after? I know they lost 2 of their stud OL in the first 5 picks of the NFL draft. From what I have read, QB may have his mind on something other than football. Needless to say, he will still be a major factor in their offense.

Well, in reference to another current thread, I just wanna know how many people UH is bringing to this game!!

(07-15-2013 05:28 PM)Ricefan68 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 05:09 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Watched the A&M Spring Game on ESPN....

Since we can guess at gameplans.....

Strong Side Power
Weak Side Counter
Play Action off Weak Side Counter
Strong Side 3 receiver patterns with emphasis on Hook/Curl zone
Roll the pocket occasionally
Pass/Run mix 60/40

That's my guess for success.

I have not seen their spring game. Do you think there are certain personnel we can exploit or is it their scheme? or both? If two of their starting DB's sit this out for off the field issues it should give our passing game a boost. Anything you picked up that our D may be able to go after? I know they lost 2 of their stud OL in the first 5 picks of the NFL draft. From what I have read, QB may have his mind on something other than football. Needless to say, he will still be a major factor in their offense.

Their corners are fast and aggressive and pretty deep numbers (losing two probably won't cause them too much grief). The safeties do a good job but can be beat if you run routes the right way. The DL and backers are quick but have a tendency to get walled off on the weak side. Their base shell was a 4-2-5 Cover 2. The did run some Cover 3 and Cover 1. They ran some quarters as well. They try and disguise the coverage and move into position after the snap but it is pretty easy to see it all happen.

Their distracted QB did pretty good. He makes plays outside the pocket well. He does have a tendency to try and thread the needle while in the pocket and his completion rate drops a bit from the pocket. Therefore, I'd make him play to this weakness and rush the ends and contain him in the pocket and make him throw from there. He tries to force things a bit from there and isn't quite as successful. The OL protects well and the QB can escape trouble when it breaks down in the middle. They run a bunch of short routes and the deeper throws usually come off of a scramble that breaks containment. They commented on utilizing their big athletic TEs on the perimeter as well as their traditional rolls.

They are good but not invincible.There is hope.

(07-15-2013 04:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

The first difference that comes to mind is three minus one equals two.
I think we are good enough to beat A$M, IF a lot of things go our way. I don't think it would happen three times in a row.

I guess I really should complete the thought by noting that there are those who:
1) talk seriously about beating aTm,
2) think playing three such games would be terrible, but
3) want to go to a big-time conference where we would play 6-8 of them per year.

So how is it that one is okay, three are terrible, but eight are what we want? I'm not following the logic.

(07-15-2013 04:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:42 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  A bigger deal will be what happens in the first half. This guy and this team are ripe to get punched in the mouth in their opener. No reason why a focused, disciplined Rice team can't pull a major upset to start the season. I hope Baliff doesn't treat this game like other openers in the past against big programs and treat them like a pre-season exhibition. Let's go win this one!

He said last night that they had already worked up preliminary game plans for the first three games.

I would expect--and hope--that they have preliminary game plans for all games on the schedule by now. That should precede the process of putting the fall practice schedule, and they should be in the middle of doing that at this point.

I didn't take that to mean they were ignoring the later games, just that more detail had been worked out for the upcoming games.

I didn't take it to mean they were ignoring the later games. I would expect them all to be worked out to pretty much the same level of detail at this point, perhaps with a bit more on the opener.

My point was more that the first comment seemed to suggest that they were doing something special by having preliminary plans done, and I was just pointing out that that's where they should be normally.

(07-15-2013 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 01:14 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 11:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 10:42 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  A bigger deal will be what happens in the first half. This guy and this team are ripe to get punched in the mouth in their opener. No reason why a focused, disciplined Rice team can't pull a major upset to start the season. I hope Baliff doesn't treat this game like other openers in the past against big programs and treat them like a pre-season exhibition. Let's go win this one!

He said last night that they had already worked up preliminary game plans for the first three games.

which I fear may well be Bailiff's plan.

Not the impression I got. Bailiff did not go into details, understandably, but all there were very enthusiastic about our chances in every game. No give-up on this side of the Rockies.

How about no excuses, no give up EVER?

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

I think the issue is when you're playing 3 really killer games on the road. It gets people hurt and is most likely 3 loses. Rice has gotten smarter in recent years to keep these games against either regional top teams (UT, A&M, would be fine with LSU or OU as well) or second-tier teams from top conferences. I've enjoyed our recent wins over Purdue and Kansas. They've been great for the program. Would also be great to see more balance in home-away.

(07-16-2013 07:36 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

I think the issue is when you're playing 3 really killer games on the road. It gets people hurt and is most likely 3 loses. Rice has gotten smarter in recent years to keep these games against either regional top teams (UT, A&M, would be fine with LSU or OU as well) or second-tier teams from top conferences. I've enjoyed our recent wins over Purdue and Kansas. They've been great for the program. Would also be great to see more balance in home-away.

Yep, I think we have to go the Boise/TCU route and play people we can consistently beat, play well in a bowl game year in and out, which in turn will upgrade our recruiting to three (and some four) star players - which will perpetuate the process. At that point, I think we start scheduling the ESU's.

I also think with the way we finished last year, and our expectations for this coming year, we may be well on our way down this path.

A&M's OL is so good that the Aggies could score at least 35 without attempting a pass. In my opinion, Rice will need to score TDs on virtually every possession in order to stay in contact.

(07-16-2013 09:31 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 07:36 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

I think the issue is when you're playing 3 really killer games on the road. It gets people hurt and is most likely 3 loses. Rice has gotten smarter in recent years to keep these games against either regional top teams (UT, A&M, would be fine with LSU or OU as well) or second-tier teams from top conferences. I've enjoyed our recent wins over Purdue and Kansas. They've been great for the program. Would also be great to see more balance in home-away.

Yep, I think we have to go the Boise/TCU route and play people we can consistently beat, play well in a bowl game year in and out, which in turn will upgrade our recruiting to three (and some four) star players - which will perpetuate the process. At that point, I think we start scheduling the ESU's.

I also think with the way we finished last year, and our expectations for this coming year, we may be well on our way down this path.

I don't.

Boise and TCU did one thing we aren't doing. They spent a ton of money to upgrade their programs as they went along. We aren't doing that, and that puts a severe lid on how far we can go. The way we finished last year was 6-6, 7-6 with the bowl win. Going 6-6 in CUSA isn't going to get us anywhere, although it is a step up from 2-10, 4-8, 4-8. Let's win 10 games a season for three or four years in a row before we even start to talk about Boise or TCU.

Get a dose of reality. We need to spend a bunch of money to fix facilities and then we need to spend a couple of million a year more on operating expenses just to tread water, and at the same time we have to reduce the deficit. Exactly where in hell are the revenues going to come from to do that? We're still in the mode of cutting expenditures, and we've already cut them past where we can be competitive. We're going to lose good coaches because we can't pay, or because we won't even pay things that we've already committed to pay, but that's not going to hurt our ability to prepare? We're going to continue to cut the off-campus stipend, but that's not going to affect recruiting adversely? Come on, get real. What in the hell are you smoking? Or drinking? Without spending money that we currently don't have, anything better than 7-5 or so is going to be an outlier. That won't get us to Boise or TCU status.

You are wanting and expecting a result that is not possible.

(07-16-2013 12:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 09:31 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(07-16-2013 07:36 AM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(07-15-2013 03:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I guess what I find somewhat mystifying is that we have people who on the one hand insist that aTm is ripe for the picking while on the other hand insist that playing three moneybag games would destroy the program. If we're good enough to beat aTm, we're plenty good enough to play LSU and Alabama, too. And if you don't want to do that, then how do you get the money that we need to run a real program instead of a half-@$$ed one?

I think the issue is when you're playing 3 really killer games on the road. It gets people hurt and is most likely 3 loses. Rice has gotten smarter in recent years to keep these games against either regional top teams (UT, A&M, would be fine with LSU or OU as well) or second-tier teams from top conferences. I've enjoyed our recent wins over Purdue and Kansas. They've been great for the program. Would also be great to see more balance in home-away.

Yep, I think we have to go the Boise/TCU route and play people we can consistently beat, play well in a bowl game year in and out, which in turn will upgrade our recruiting to three (and some four) star players - which will perpetuate the process. At that point, I think we start scheduling the ESU's.
I also think with the way we finished last year, and our expectations for this coming year, we may be well on our way down this path.

I don't.

Boise and TCU did one thing we aren't doing. They spent a ton of money to upgrade their programs as they went along. We aren't doing that, and that puts a severe lid on how far we can go. The way we finished last year was 6-6, 7-6 with the bowl win. Going 6-6 in CUSA isn't going to get us anywhere, although it is a step up from 2-10, 4-8, 4-8. Let's win 10 games a season for three or four years in a row before we even start to talk about Boise or TCU.

Get a dose of reality. We need to spend a bunch of money to fix facilities and then we need to spend a couple of million a year more on operating expenses just to tread water, and at the same time we have to reduce the deficit. Exactly where in hell are the revenues going to come from to do that? We're still in the mode of cutting expenditures, and we've already cut them past where we can be competitive. We're going to lose good coaches because we can't pay, or because we won't even pay things that we've already committed to pay, but that's not going to hurt our ability to prepare? We're going to continue to cut the off-campus stipend, but that's not going to affect recruiting adversely? Come on, get real. What in the hell are you smoking? Or drinking?

You are wanting and expecting a result that is not possible.

Wow, wake up on the wrong side of the bed?