(11-30-2013 06:52 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  I'm not taking $50. Keep it "friendly"; $5, one person. I don't come from big money like some of you do.

All right then, $5 - unless Ricelad wants it. And to clarify, your proposal is that Marshall gets votes, plural. One vote from their own coach doesn't make your argument.

FYI: There's a men's basketball game later tonight.

Glad we won. Have to take a bottle of antacids after db's games.

One thing to be in close exciting games with superior opponents. Another to back in to wins or barely escape the likes of FAU, Tulane, etc... It is better than losing these games, no doubt, but it seems like it should not be that hard as we are making it.

Congrats, players. KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS to the Defense, without which we had no chance to win this game.

No matter what happens...please for the love of all that is good, NO CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR BAILIFF THIS YEAR...PLEASE!!!! Wait til we see what happens after next year is over at the very least.

(11-30-2013 06:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 06:52 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  I'm not taking $50. Keep it "friendly"; $5, one person. I don't come from big money like some of you do.

All right then, $5 - unless Ricelad wants it. And to clarify, your proposal is that Marshall gets votes, plural. One vote from their own coach doesn't make your argument.

I don't need to take a petty bet so that someone who apparently is "irked" by me can try to prove a point.

(11-30-2013 06:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 06:52 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  I'm not taking $50. Keep it "friendly"; $5, one person. I don't come from big money like some of you do.

All right then, $5 - unless Ricelad wants it. And to clarify, your proposal is that Marshall gets votes, plural. One vote from their own coach doesn't make your argument.

Does their coach vote? If he does, then it is "votes." If not, it is "any vote." Those are the terms.

This game was nothing like FAU or UAB. No leads blown, no need for fourth quarter gifts, no need for OT. Offense should have scored more, but it wasn't that bad.

(11-30-2013 07:00 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 06:59 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 06:52 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  I'm not taking $50. Keep it "friendly"; $5, one person. I don't come from big money like some of you do.

All right then, $5 - unless Ricelad wants it. And to clarify, your proposal is that Marshall gets votes, plural. One vote from their own coach doesn't make your argument.

Does their coach vote? If he does, then it is "votes." If not, it is "any vote." Those are the terms.

Done.

Do we have any way to know if Marshall's coach votes?

Edit: Bailiff and Holliday apparently both vote.

JOwl, just so you know, I will still pay if Marshall gets multiple points as a result of Holliday placing them higher than 25th.

(11-30-2013 07:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  This game was nothing like FAU or UAB. No leads blown, no need for fourth quarter gifts, no need for OT. Offense should have scored more, but it wasn't that bad.

If you are making a list, then Tulsa needs to be on it too.

(11-30-2013 07:16 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 07:04 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  This game was nothing like FAU or UAB. No leads blown, no need for fourth quarter gifts, no need for OT. Offense should have scored more, but it wasn't that bad.

If you are making a list, then Tulsa needs to be on it too.

I am NOT putting this defensive effort on any list of bad games. Led the entire way, no OT, no need to score in 2nd half. I'll put this game on the list of great defensive efforts.

(11-30-2013 07:08 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Do we have any way to know if Marshall's coach votes?

Edit: Bailiff and Holliday apparently both vote.

JOwl, just so you know, I will still pay if Marshall gets multiple points as a result of Holliday placing them higher than 25th.

That's eminently fair.

Also, Marshall's coach's name is Doc Holiday? How did I not know this?

(11-30-2013 05:45 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 05:43 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Credit to Tulane. They haven't given up, and their defense is pretty good as well.

But this game should be OVER. Instead, we head to the fourth with a 7-point lead and no momentum.

Good adjustments by Tulane at halftime. Rice.... not so much.

The story of this season and the history under Reagan. Earier this year, Bailiff said we need to solve our 3Q woes. We have now gone an entire regular season, and we've had just a couple good second halves the whole year, and they were against teams that were effectively defenseless (UTEP, LaTech). What the heck does our coaching staff do in the halftime lockerroom? And why do we continue to run an entirely different offense in the 2nd half than we do so successfully in the first halves?

This is no longer simply a case of crediting the opposition for making adjustments at halftime. Rather, the pattern has been so consistent that it screams that it is at least in part our own doing. After 11 games (and now 12), you'd think we would have learned something...but no.

Thank heavens our defense came to play today, and played the game of their collective lives. Those players and the defensive coaching staff deserves all the credit for this win. The offense and Reagan tried their hardest to give the game away; a game that one could not possibly dominate more than we did in the first half.

Just got home. Congratulations Owls! The defense was superb today. Donte Moore had his best game as an Owl. Taylor's passing was crisp and on target, particularly on the slants over the middle.

And I hope Charlie W. doesn't see this game film.

(11-30-2013 07:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 05:45 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 05:43 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Credit to Tulane. They haven't given up, and their defense is pretty good as well.

But this game should be OVER. Instead, we head to the fourth with a 7-point lead and no momentum.

Good adjustments by Tulane at halftime. Rice.... not so much.

The story of this season and the history under Reagan. Earier this year, Bailiff said we need to solve our 3Q woes. We have now gone an entire regular season, and we've had just a couple good second halves the whole year, and they were against teams that were effectively defenseless (UTEP, LaTech). What the heck does our coaching staff do in the halftime lockerroom? And why do we continue to run an entirely different offense in the 2nd half than we do so successfully in the first halves?

This is no longer simply a case of crediting the opposition for making adjustments at halftime. Rather, the pattern has been so consistent that it screams that it is at least in part our own doing. After 11 games (and now 12), you'd think we would have learned something...but no.

Thank heavens our defense came to play today, and played the game of their collective lives. Those players and the defensive coaching staff deserves all the credit for this win. The offense and Reagan tried their hardest to give the game away; a game that one could not possibly dominate more than we did in the first half.

Compare the first halves offensively vs. A&M and Tulane, with the second halves of those games - just scary how the offense goes into hibernation. I'm excited for the win and the overall season success, but they can't get away with today's second half performance against Marshall and expect to win. Thank goodness the defense maintained its intensity.

(11-30-2013 07:36 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 07:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 05:45 PM)TJS_NYC Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 05:43 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Credit to Tulane. They haven't given up, and their defense is pretty good as well.

But this game should be OVER. Instead, we head to the fourth with a 7-point lead and no momentum.

Good adjustments by Tulane at halftime. Rice.... not so much.

The story of this season and the history under Reagan. Earier this year, Bailiff said we need to solve our 3Q woes. We have now gone an entire regular season, and we've had just a couple good second halves the whole year, and they were against teams that were effectively defenseless (UTEP, LaTech). What the heck does our coaching staff do in the halftime lockerroom? And why do we continue to run an entirely different offense in the 2nd half than we do so successfully in the first halves?

This is no longer simply a case of crediting the opposition for making adjustments at halftime. Rather, the pattern has been so consistent that it screams that it is at least in part our own doing. After 11 games (and now 12), you'd think we would have learned something...but no.

Thank heavens our defense came to play today, and played the game of their collective lives. Those players and the defensive coaching staff deserves all the credit for this win. The offense and Reagan tried their hardest to give the game away; a game that one could not possibly dominate more than we did in the first half.

Compare the first halves offensively vs. A&M and Tulane, with the second halves of those games - just scary how the offense goes into hibernation. I'm excited for the win and the overall season success, but they can't get away with today's second half performance against Marshall and expect to win. Thank goodness the defense maintained its intensity.

Same thing happened against Kansas, UH, UNT and several other opponents. It has happened far too consistently and frequently to be considered a coincidence, or simply great adjustments by the opposition. Save for the UTEP and LaTech games (neither of which has any semblance of defense), we have gone into hibernation in every other second half this season....and on numerous occassions, after being unstoppable our first two or three series, our offensive inexplicably and suddenly changes it's game plan and comes to a screetching halt.

Defense was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps the most dominating performance by a Rice defense against a bowl-bound team in 50 years. Yes, I mean that.

The offense was spotty (as usual) and gave up the short field more than once, but they put the ball in the end zone enough to win.

Today we celebrate... tomorrow we can review and analyze and be critical and we have all next week to speculate again.

(11-30-2013 07:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Defense was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps the most dominating performance by a Rice defense against a bowl-bound team in 50 years. Yes, I mean that.

The offense was spotty (as usual) and gave up the short field more than once, but they put the ball in the end zone enough to win.

Today we celebrate... tomorrow we can review and analyze and be critical and we have all next week to speculate again.

(11-30-2013 07:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Defense was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps the most dominating performance by a Rice defense against a bowl-bound team in 50 years. Yes, I mean that.

The offense was spotty (as usual) and gave up the short field more than once, but they put the ball in the end zone enough to win.

Today we celebrate... tomorrow we can review and analyze and be critical and we have all next week to speculate again.

Perhaps? The only defense that has come close to such a performance against a bowl-bound team since the early 1960s was the Cornelius Walker-led 1974 defense, which ended the season Top 20 ranked, despite playing in arguably the best conference in the country at the time and with additional OOC games against nationally ranked LSU and Notre Dame. Of course, having Pringle as the punter helped. (Unfotunately, we had no offense that season, as it took another season for Tommy Kramer and Company to mature and establish themselves.)

(11-30-2013 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 07:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Defense was OUTSTANDING. Perhaps the most dominating performance by a Rice defense against a bowl-bound team in 50 years. Yes, I mean that.

The offense was spotty (as usual) and gave up the short field more than once, but they put the ball in the end zone enough to win.

Today we celebrate... tomorrow we can review and analyze and be critical and we have all next week to speculate again.

have a drink on me

Our cheerleaders even made a cheerleaders-of-the-week photo show on Yahoo Sports ...
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/college-f...slideshow/