Maybe the goal is that we don't want to be the best win on a losing team's ledger.

But it will happen. Missouri lost at home to Indiana, yet won the SEC East. I wouldn't trade a win over Indiana for a more respectable loss, say to TAMU.

But Memphis 2012 and ODU 2014 are too close together for comfort. But in hindsight maybe ODU doesn't meet my test because La Tech was a much better win for them than Rice was.

Never is a strong word.

(12-02-2014 11:42 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Maybe the goal is that we don't want to be the best win on a losing team's ledger.

But it will happen. Missouri lost at home to Indiana, yet won the SEC East. I wouldn't trade a win over Indiana for a more respectable loss, say to TAMU.

But Memphis 2012 and ODU 2014 are too close together for comfort. But in hindsight maybe ODU doesn't meet my test because La Tech was a much better win for them than Rice was.

Never is a strong word.

I still don't like that sort of a metric. The worst team in the SEC still might be a top 50 team.

I think the most reliable metric is ranking. Rankings certainly CAN have some variance, but the closer you are to the top, the less variance there seems to be. You might REALLY be 45 when the rankings say you are 55, but you aren't likely #30 or #80

(12-02-2014 12:28 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:I'd ask you (all). Given what we pay our coaches. Given our facilities. Given our advantages and our restrictions, is our collective expectation realistic? Don't tell me 'where' you think those resources should go (yet)... just admit or deny that our expectations, given our allocated resources, are realistic.

My expectations at this time
1. Consistently winning or playing for the C-USA championship
and
2. Not losing to teams like ODU
and
3. Not giving up 50+ points EVER (I will make exceptions in cases for 2008 Texas, where they were just really really good)
and
4. Being competitive against top 50 programs.

Given what we pay, our facilities etc. I think this is very reasonable. Now, if we want to consistently compete and beat top 50 teams, that equation would change. But right now, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to do the 4 points I listed.

I responded to this, but it disappeared. The subject of goals is worthwhile, so I'll repeat.

I like your goals .

#1 and #4 are macro and I agree with them (they're close to mine). #3 and #4 are micro and I think difficult to guarantee. In 1988 and 2009, Rice was "ODU", but we almost beat Texas in 1989 - heck, we beat 'em, the refs gave it back. Plus ODU may turn out to be the latest Boise State. Boise was 8-4 in 2001 when they moved up a Division, and Rice handed them their worst loss for over 10 years. But they handed out 8 losses to teams that probably thought playing Boise was beneath them. With regard to 50 points, well TCU put up 82 on who? Tech? and with the emphasis on scoring (and getting noticed for the playoffs) I think breaking 50 is something that will happen more and more often.

But they are your goals, not mine, so make them as you see fit.

As I've stated elsewhere, my goals would be to consistently rank in the top half of Division 1 (62 or better, give or take), meaning 9 out of every 10 years or so. And I think we should occasionally sneak into the 25 to 45 range. Plus regularly contend for the Western Division and Conference championships.

With regard to goals, it strikes me that a goal is likely achievable or realistic if you can point to several G5 teams that have met the goals we set for ourselves.

The goals I've set seem reasonable for a good G5 program. TCU and Boise easily exceeded them between 2000 and 2010. And I'm sure there are other G5's who've met them for 5 and 10 years at a time.

Your macro goals are reasonable too. (TCU got beat by a bad SMU team, among others, and that would not meet your #2 criteria).

If a set of goals has not been met by any G5, or has been met in a virtually unique set of circumstances . . . it's obviously still a set of goals, but having them sets us up for disappointment and failure.
I think the goal of joining a P5 league falls into that category, unfortunately, at least for the short term, and probably for quite some time.

Your post, and my own goals, got me thinking of the concept of achievable goals and how that could be defined. That's where the 'litmus test' of identifying other G5 programs that have met the goals before came from.

Rick, I don't think you can look at 'history' when the dynamics are constantly changing, especially when the metrics for schools are so different.

among other things...

We aren't starting from where anyone else was.
The next 'invite' isn't likely to be comparable to the 'last' invite.
and perhaps most important, There ARE no other schools like Rice NOT already IN a p5 conference Heck, I don't think there is a school in the academic top 75 that has 1-A sports but isn't in a p5 conference... much less the top 25.

expansions and shuffles that were designed to take advantage of the BCS won't be the same as the expansions and shuffles designed to take advantage of the playoff system.

Rather than continue to articulate what are essentially trivial differences in verbiage, the entire PURPOSE of this thread was to create a single clearly articulated and measurable goal. If your goals are to be in the top 62 nine of ten years and I said top 50... and you say 'occasionally sneak as high as 25' while JK has said be in the top 25... and it's pretty obvious that teams between 25 and 62 will be able to 'compete' for the division title... then just as I demonstrated with Antarius, our goals really aren't that different.

These goals are somewhat higher than where we are now. Rather than ARGUE/DEBATE about whether we are 10 slots below where we want to be or 60, or better or worse than 2008 or 1988, we need to UNITE behind the idea that we need to be better than that. Rather than argue/debate about whether we deserve or even WANT to be in a p5 conference, we need to unite behind the idea that being better gives us more options. Rather than argue/debate about whether or not Bailiff and Co can 'get us there', we need to unite behind the idea that they are currently the people we have charged to accomplish that task, and OUR job is to ensure that we have given them reasonable resources to meet that expectation.

Rephrasing what I said earlier... if you want to argue/debate, PLEASE seek out the other thread. THIS thread is designed to solicit unity.

(12-03-2014 12:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Rick, I don't think you can look at 'history' when the dynamics are constantly changing, especially when the metrics for schools are so different.

among other things...

We aren't starting from where anyone else was.
The next 'invite' isn't likely to be comparable to the 'last' invite.
and perhaps most important, There ARE no other schools like Rice NOT already IN a p5 conference Heck, I don't think there is a school in the academic top 75 that has 1-A sports but isn't in a p5 conference... much less the top 25.

expansions and shuffles that were designed to take advantage of the BCS won't be the same as the expansions and shuffles designed to take advantage of the playoff system.

Rather than continue to articulate what are essentially trivial differences in verbiage, the entire PURPOSE of this thread was to create a single clearly articulated and measurable goal. If your goals are to be in the top 62 nine of ten years and I said top 50... and you say 'occasionally sneak as high as 25' while JK has said be in the top 25... and it's pretty obvious that teams between 25 and 62 will be able to 'compete' for the division title... then just as I demonstrated with Antarius, our goals really aren't that different.

These goals are somewhat higher than where we are now. Rather than ARGUE/DEBATE about whether we are 10 slots below where we want to be or 60, or better or worse than 2008 or 1988, we need to UNITE behind the idea that we need to be better than that. Rather than argue/debate about whether we deserve or even WANT to be in a p5 conference, we need to unite behind the idea that being better gives us more options. Rather than argue/debate about whether or not Bailiff and Co can 'get us there', we need to unite behind the idea that they are currently the people we have charged to accomplish that task, and OUR job is to ensure that we have given them reasonable resources to meet that expectation.

Rephrasing what I said earlier... if you want to argue/debate, PLEASE seek out the other thread. THIS thread is designed to solicit unity.

Well there was no argument or debate in my post. Only discussion of goals, and a suggested litmus test of reasonableness. The portion of your text that got highlighted is what gets debated / hotly discussed, and my post wasn't related to that at all. I'm pretty sure you know I'm fine with the highlighted portion of your post above as well.

As you stated, the goals are closely defined, albeit not exactly. As long as this thread acknowledges that goals are individual, not universal, I doubt you'll see any arguments. I certainly wasn't disagreeing with his.

(12-03-2014 01:42 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  As you stated, the goals are closely defined, albeit not exactly. As long as this thread acknowledges that goals are individual, not universal, I doubt you'll see any arguments. I certainly wasn't disagreeing with his.

I guess I'm just not being clear enough then, Rick.

Your personal goals (or mine or anyone else's not funding it entirely out of their own pocket) aren't really important. By continuing to articulate and discuss (I said debate/argue... but if you'd prefer discuss, I SIMILARLY don't see that difference as being enough to 'discuss' these differences) ALL we are doing is fragmenting the group.

If we're going to be successful, we need to spend more time talking about those things that UNITE, and not DIVIDE us.

Whether you agree with him 100% or not, We (collectively) hired Dr K to lead our program. His articulated vision says 'winning conference championships and/or finishing in the top 25 National Rankings'.

It doesn't say ANYTHING about 'not losing to teams like ODU' (something Ant said) or even going 9 of 10 years finishing in the top half of division 1 (something you said) or being top 50 in bad years (something I said)

However, all three of those statements are pretty darn close to each other, aren't they. "Good' teams don't lose to bad ones. If we're in (or very near) the top 50 in our bad years, we're in the top half of d1 9 of 10 years. The reason I am articulating it the way I am, rather than the way YOU are is that I believe mine is more consistently measurable. What if the definition of Division 1 changes? Either formally or informally? (I'm willing to amend my goals if you see a reason why mine aren't clear).

I'm not comfortable leaving the and/or of Dr K's statement because we could join the SWAC in football and win conference championships and still fulfill the 'or', right? Not that I believe that was his intention at all, but it shows the ambiguity. Is the SUn Belt worse than CUSA? Could we 'drop' down and win a championship and meet his goals? What if we got invited to the Big10 and were top 30 and going to bowls, but never top 25 and never wining the championship? Would that be failure?

The POINT is to create CLEARLY defined and measurable goals by which we can say... we're either being successful or we're not, and by approximately how far.

Until you do that, all you are doing is what we've been doing on here for weeks, months and years... and debating/arguing/discussing perspectives...

The reason this is important is because we need to raise money to accomplish these goals... and people don't 'give' to goals that they don't support. If I'm not happy with what I see as the ambiguity in Dr K's statement, it makes it harder for me to write a check for it. If I'm ok with losing by 59 to Alabama on occasion (like A&M did) so long as we are still considered to be a top 50 program (like A&M is) and Antarius isn't, then he isn't going to be as supportive when that happens. Now, if I'm writing a $50mm endowment check, then I can pretty well put whatever restrictions and goals I want... and the school and administration can choose to accept or reject my check... but if I'm talking about writing a $50 or $5000 or even a somewhat larger check than that, then ONCE that vision is articulated, I need to 'get behind' that shared vision in whatever capacity I can... buying a single extra ticket... buying season tickets.... making a $50 donation... yelling louder... WHATEVER I can do, because I SAID I'D AGREE to support the goal.

Can you get behind the goal I articulated? If not, is it because you don't support that goal, that you find my definitions (and reasons for re-articulating Dr K's) lacking or that they aren't compatible with his? Some other reason?

THAT'S what this thread is about... Creating consensus... and not about discussing how your definitions might differ from mine. There are plenty of threads where you can discuss that.

It's fine to argue and debate and discuss... just as I initially said... but at SOME point... SOMEONE needs to remind us all of the shared goals/vision so that we can try and meet them.

Quote:The reason this is important is because we need to raise money to accomplish these goals... and people don't 'give' to goals that they don't support. If I'm not happy with what I see as the ambiguity in Dr K's statement, it makes it harder for me to write a check for it. If I'm ok with losing by 59 to Alabama on occasion (like A&M did) so long as we are still considered to be a top 50 program (like A&M is) and Antarius isn't, then he isn't going to be as supportive when that happens.

Very well said.

There is ambiguity in even my statement - if we were top 50 and lost to the #1 team by 59, id be unhappy but not wanting to throw things like I did after losing to LT; and while I said never losing by 50 ever, it was said with a mindset based on our current situation and recent defeat.

No point paraphrasing - you said it : The POINT is to create CLEARLY defined and measurable goals by which we can say... we're either being successful or we're not, and by approximately how far.

BOOM!!

Great summary Ant. Thanks.