(12-31-2014 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 11:09 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 10:55 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  If we're good enough to beat UT, we're NOT going to go 1-11. That's reality. I just don't get those of you who think it's a choice between getting those signature wins and having a good season.

You missed the point, Walt, and I am NOT one of those who think it's a choice between getting those signature wins and having a good season. In fact, I think that is a null set. But I do think we can have a good season next year, even if we miss our shot at Texas, and we can also have a bad season even with the signature win. I was trying to say we should not put all our eggs in one basket, that while bailiff needs to prepare for the UT game, he also has to prepare for the season as whole. UT is not the make or break game - rather it could be the cherry on the top, but only if we follow it with a good overall season. And why are we ignoring Baylor? Is everybody writing that one off and concentrating on just UT?

How is preparing for UT not preparing for the season as a whole? If we beat UT we are NOT going to have a bad season. And, yes, I do think Texas is an opportunity for our first signature win that we simply cannot pass up if we truly aspire to be on the path toward getting to the next level.

You are still missing the point. Don't focus on the vanishingly small chance of a 1-11 season with a UT win. That was an extreme example to make a point, which you are missing.

I agree that UT is an opportunity for our first signature win in a long time. But that game does not make or break the season.

And who the hell said a damn thing about passing it up?

Next year is shaping up as a very good year for Rice football. We've got a ton of talent returning on both sides of the ball, and very promising RS Freshmen waiting in the wings to fill the only two voids in the secondary and OL. Again, barring major injury, we should be favored to win every single game we play save for the UT and Baylor games. If we're going to truly show improvement as a program, and gain at least some attention nationally (something that a 10-2 record earned by beating up on teams ranked outside the Top 75 will not do), we need to beat Texas...and we get them when they're down. We simply cannot squander this opportunity. We should have a very good season regardless, but if we're going to truly show improvement and gain some national recognition then beating UT next year is an all or nothing. If we can't do it next year, can we realistically expect to ever be able to do it?

Here is a question-whose record would you rather have over the past 3 seasons, Rice or La Tech?

Over the 3 years combined, we are 25-15 and they are 22-16.

We played in 3 bowls, winning 2 against G5 and getting blown out by P5. They played in only 1, winning it against a P5 team. They were bowl eligible in 2012 but screwed up by turning down Independence for a prettier girl who never came calling.

Each has appeared in one conference championship game, we won. they lost. (footnote--they also played for WAC title in 2012 but it wasn't technically a championship game).

Each of the three head to heads have been huge blowouts--La Tech won two of them.

Last, they have by far the two highest final season ratings of the 6 total. They currently sit in the 30s in sagarin, were 51 in 2012, and were about the worst FBS rated team in 2013.

We have been more consistent, but mediocre. interesting that as of this morning sagarin has us slightly higher rated than we were in 2013.

PS--per coaches hot seat, they pay their coach slightly less than we pay ours.

(12-31-2014 12:14 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Here is a question-whose record would you rather have over the past 3 seasons, Rice or La Tech?

Rice, no question. 3 straight winning seasons, 3 straight bowl appearances, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship, 0 FCS losses.

I guess the case for LaTech is that they were better than us in 2 of the 3 seasons, but over those seasons, the difference wasn't nearly as much as the head-to-head scores indicated, and we were much much much better than them in 2013.

(12-31-2014 12:14 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Here is a question-whose record would you rather have over the past 3 seasons, Rice or La Tech?

Over the 3 years combined, we are 25-15 and they are 22-16.

We played in 3 bowls, winning 2 against G5 and getting blown out by P5. They played in only 1, winning it against a P5 team. They were bowl eligible in 2012 but screwed up by turning down Independence for a prettier girl who never came calling.

Each has appeared in one conference championship game, we won. they lost. (footnote--they also played for WAC title in 2012 but it wasn't technically a championship game).

Each of the three head to heads have been huge blowouts--La Tech won two of them.

Last, they have by far the two highest final season ratings of the 6 total. They currently sit in the 30s in sagarin, were 51 in 2012, and were about the worst FBS rated team in 2013.

We have been more consistent, but mediocre. interesting that as of this morning sagarin has us slightly higher rated than we were in 2013.

PS--per coaches hot seat, they pay their coach slightly less than we pay ours.

Ruston vs. Houston
HRS vs. the cow pasture.


I vote us. Hard to build a national image when you blow hot and cold.

I think it is an interesting question and good points can be made either way. If you say "I'd rather be Rice than La Tech in football over 2012-2014", you have to at least acknowledge that it is close. I'm talking football achievements (by which I mean wins, losses, and strength of schedule), not location, academic standards, facilities.

But to paraphrase 69, having a body of work over 3-5 years that is clearly superior to La Tech is probably an imperative if we aspire to a higher status in life.

And not just La Tech but also UNT, UTEP, and UTSA. But it is a slam dunk that we have been better than those 3 over the 2012-2014 period.

La Tech was an AP top 25 team for ~month in 2012. I would take them for that fact alone, since that's a significant legitimizing metric for a G5 team (whereas SOMEONE will always win CUSA, or fill one of their ~5 bowl slots, etc.).

(12-31-2014 01:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  La Tech was an AP top 25 team for ~month in 2012. I would take them for that fact alone, since that's a significant legitimizing metric for a G5 team (whereas SOMEONE will always win CUSA, or fill one of their ~5 bowl slots, etc.).

Disagree. It doesn't legitimize anything unless you end the year there. Again, very, very few college football fans notice or care who's ranked outside the Top 10 - 15, save for fans of that particular team and conference. It doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever, IMO; especially if said team hadn't beaten anyone of any consequence.

(12-31-2014 12:25 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 12:14 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Here is a question-whose record would you rather have over the past 3 seasons, Rice or La Tech?

Rice, no question. 3 straight winning seasons, 3 straight bowl appearances, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship, 0 FCS losses.

I guess the case for LaTech is that they were better than us in 2 of the 3 seasons, but over those seasons, the difference wasn't nearly as much as the head-to-head scores indicated, and we were much much much better than them in 2013.

Agreed. Same reasoning with heavy emphasis on the conference championship and 2 convincing bowl wins over 'name' G5 / MWC programs

(12-31-2014 01:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  La Tech was an AP top 25 team for ~month in 2012. I would take them for that fact alone, since that's a significant legitimizing metric for a G5 team (whereas SOMEONE will always win CUSA, or fill one of their ~5 bowl slots, etc.).

Good point, but I'd still take the conference championships and the 2 bowl wins

It will be interesting to see who is favored next year

Too early to tell until we see how each starts 2015

(12-31-2014 01:17 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  La Tech was an AP top 25 team for ~month in 2012. I would take them for that fact alone, since that's a significant legitimizing metric for a G5 team (whereas SOMEONE will always win CUSA, or fill one of their ~5 bowl slots, etc.).

Disagree. It doesn't legitimize anything unless you end the year there. Again, very, very few college football fans notice or care who's ranked outside the Top 10 - 15, save for fans of that particular team and conference. It doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever, IMO; especially if said team hadn't beaten anyone of any consequence.

They were at least in the conversation fora BCS bowl until a late season swoon. That would do great things for Rice. But the fact is that the up and down seasons they have had are built on two year recruiting cycles (if that).

(12-31-2014 10:53 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Walt, lighten up.

Pretty sure Walt's response was a long way of saying "no."

Rice finished the 2014 season with a dominating 30-6 win over Fresno State in the Hawai'i Bowl. The result earned a 69.02 performance rating, the third-highest of David Bailiff's tenure as head coach, trailing only the victories over North Texas and Western Michigan in 2008. Here's the final numbers for the season:

@Notre Dame: 35.28
@Texas A&M: 41.91
Old Dominion: 36.19
@Southern Mississippi: 56.59
Hawai'i: 52.71
@Army: 59.86
North Texas: 53.98
@Florida International: 58.02
Texas-San Antonio: 47.70
@Marshall: 40.60
UTEP: 60.32
@Louisiana Tech: 16.80
vs.Fresno State: 69.02

---

Median: 52.71
Mean: 48.38
Standard Deviation: 13.94
Strength of Schedule: 48.08
Record: 8-5
Predicted Number of Wins: 8.3022

The median performance rating is the second-highest of the Bailiff era, topped only by 2008's 53.02. The two 60+ games in 2014 makes it only the second season that a Bailiff team has accomplished this (the 2008 team did it four times). However, the rating in the Louisiana Tech game is the lowest a Rice team has sunk since 2010. The number of wins Massey's system predicted was actually slightly higher than what the Owls achieved; the only other time this happened during Bailiff's tenure was his first season in 2007 (probably because this is the first season since 2008 that the Owls didn't win any games that the system predicted they'd lose).

That's it for 2014 - look for a thread for the 2015 season to appear sometime in early September....

(12-31-2014 12:14 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Here is a question-whose record would you rather have over the past 3 seasons, Rice or La Tech?

Over the 3 years combined, we are 25-15 and they are 22-16.

We played in 3 bowls, winning 2 against G5 and getting blown out by P5. They played in only 1, winning it against a P5 team. They were bowl eligible in 2012 but screwed up by turning down Independence for a prettier girl who never came calling.

Each has appeared in one conference championship game, we won. they lost. (footnote--they also played for WAC title in 2012 but it wasn't technically a championship game).

Each of the three head to heads have been huge blowouts--La Tech won two of them.

Last, they have by far the two highest final season ratings of the 6 total. They currently sit in the 30s in sagarin, were 51 in 2012, and were about the worst FBS rated team in 2013.

We have been more consistent, but mediocre. interesting that as of this morning sagarin has us slightly higher rated than we were in 2013.

PS--per coaches hot seat, they pay their coach slightly less than we pay ours.

Interesting. When I see this, I think about: "What do I think is the average college football fan's opinion of the two schools (who has no allegiance to either) likely to be at this point?" Unfortunately, at the moment I believe it is likely the average fan out there, with no affiliation to either school, probably has a better impression of LA Tech football than Rice football. I don't think many of them study the nuances of what is happening here (or there for that matter) nearly as closely as we do.

(12-31-2014 12:34 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  I think it is an interesting question and good points can be made either way. If you say "I'd rather be Rice than La Tech in football over 2012-2014", you have to at least acknowledge that it is close. I'm talking football achievements (by which I mean wins, losses, and strength of schedule), not location, academic standards, facilities.

But to paraphrase 69, having a body of work over 3-5 years that is clearly superior to La Tech is probably an imperative if we aspire to a higher status in life.

And not just La Tech but also UNT, UTEP, and UTSA. But it is a slam dunk that we have been better than those 3 over the 2012-2014 period.

I agree with your points, MemOwl.

(12-31-2014 01:06 PM)At Ease Wrote:  La Tech was an AP top 25 team for ~month in 2012. I would take them for that fact alone, since that's a significant legitimizing metric for a G5 team (whereas SOMEONE will always win CUSA, or fill one of their ~5 bowl slots, etc.).

I also agree with you here, AtEase.

(12-31-2014 01:17 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Disagree. It doesn't legitimize anything unless you end the year there. Again, very, very few college football fans notice or care who's ranked outside the Top 10 - 15, save for fans of that particular team and conference. It doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever, IMO; especially if said team hadn't beaten anyone of any consequence.

Walt, I have to disagree with your opinion that "it doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever." I understand how you feel, but call me weird (hey, I DID go to Rice after all), I'm one who always looks at the rankings of the "less common teams" in almost any ranking list I see in almost any sport. I guess I get tired of the perennial teams like Yankees, Cowboys, Red Wings, Lakers, Tar Heels, Crimson Tide, Buckeyes, etc...and always am interested in seeing who might step up. I also have a bias towards the underdogs (unless they are playing teams I am rooting for, usually.) Certainly ending the year ranked is very good, but teams cracking the Top25 even during the year make some noise for themselves and their schools. It is not nearly the same as a sustained run over years, but it still breaks into the national consciousness, even if only a little bit.

(12-31-2014 02:26 PM)I45owl Wrote:  They were at least in the conversation fora BCS bowl until a late season swoon. That would do great things for Rice. But the fact is that the up and down seasons they have had are built on two year recruiting cycles (if that).

I agree with you here, I-45owl. I don't want us to be them academically, or play the two-year cycle games they do recruiting either.

(01-17-2015 02:53 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  The median performance rating is the second-highest of the Bailiff era, topped only by 2008's 53.02. The two 60+ games in 2014 makes it only the second season that a Bailiff team has accomplished this (the 2008 team did it four times). However, the rating in the Louisiana Tech game is the lowest a Rice team has sunk since 2010. The number of wins Massey's system predicted was actually slightly higher than what the Owls achieved; the only other time this happened during Bailiff's tenure was his first season in 2007 (probably because this is the first season since 2008 that the Owls didn't win any games that the system predicted they'd lose).

Thanks for all your work on this, Jonathan. The thing I get from this is that when one compares Bailiff to himself, one can make a better case for progress than when one compares the DBD to other schools/coaches.

Good Owl Wrote:

(12-31-2014 01:17 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Disagree. It doesn't legitimize anything unless you end the year there. Again, very, very few college football fans notice or care who's ranked outside the Top 10 - 15, save for fans of that particular team and conference. It doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever, IMO; especially if said team hadn't beaten anyone of any consequence.

Walt, I have to disagree with your opinion that "it doesn't provide any national recognition whatsoever." I understand how you feel, but call me weird (hey, I DID go to Rice after all), I'm one who always looks at the rankings of the "less common teams" in almost any ranking list I see in almost any sport. I guess I get tired of the perennial teams like Yankees, Cowboys, Red Wings, Lakers, Tar Heels, Crimson Tide, Buckeyes, etc...and always am interested in seeing who might step up. I also have a bias towards the underdogs (unless they are playing teams I am rooting for, usually.) Certainly ending the year ranked is very good, but teams cracking the Top25 even during the year make some noise for themselves and their schools. It is not nearly the same as a sustained run over years, but it still breaks into the national consciousness, even if only a little bit.

It matters a little, I agree, however it is far from a game changer. The influence of Marshall being undefeated till WKU likely propagated to all of C-USA, some of West Virginia and some fans around the country. They certainly weren't being talked about in mainstream media.

The downside to having this in our conference is even if Marshall was ranked 20-25, losing to them would hurt us as much as always from a perception perspective.