(12-18-2014 01:04 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Not just here, but on other Rice threads over the past three weeks I've read numerous posts referencing the ODU loss as a result of incompetent coaching and poor preperation. While I do completely agree that the annual meat grinder is a result of having a broke athletics department, I disagree that the injuries and fatigue that follow aren't a result of it. It's not by chance that our team was slow and beat up following those games. I don't have to remind anyone here that AM and ND have bigger and more physical players. Injuries are what happens when you play against physically superior competition. And while the coaches must deal with the aftermath and piece together what's left, Rice doesn't have the kind of depth yet to plug in backups without skipping a beat.

It's a small group of people that keep bringing ODU up.

In defense of them AND of our coaches . . .

1. It was generally assumed that ODU was going to be one of the worst teams in the conference as they were moving up to CUSA. Their early season ranking had nothing to do with how good they really were, just the fact they didn't have a prior body of work. The fact is that they were actually quite a bit better than a lot of the teams in CUSA.

2. I agree that injuries are a normal part of the game. I ALSO think that we had an inordinate number of defensive players out during that game. I think that the coaches adjusted well, which is why the team came back and almost pulled the game out. I also think that it took the team a little time to adjust to the loss of Covington.

So, I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion with anyone who thinks we should've won anyway (although most of those opinions were formed immediately after the game, based on the preseason perception of ODU, not the knowledge that ODU was good enough to win 6 games and also beat LaTech). On the other hand we lost over half our defensive starters (I thought we lost 7 not 6), and that's an unusually high number for a single game, more than I believe can just be hand waved away as 'normal injury loss'.

AND, regardless of whether some posters want to cut the coaches any slack for that or not, I think everyone here (Hambone acknowledges this in his posts) would agree that had we not lost so many people defensively we WOULD have ended up winning that game, instead of losing close at home.

And that was frustrating for everyone.

(12-18-2014 05:19 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Allowing 17 points in a half to ODU is NOT playing decent defense.

Okay, fair enough, but it's not nearly as bad as the 28 in the first half. My point was that the defense's worst was before the injuries really piled up.

Congrats on cracking 7,000 plus posts, BTW.

(I think I just passed 4,000 recently. Conclusive proof that, . . . well, um . . . . I guess we both just post a lot. - LOL)

(12-18-2014 10:57 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ODU was not the 119th ranked team this year. Just a reminder.

I think we can all agree that rankings, especially as they reach the higher numbers are highly suspect, but this is where my number came from.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

College Football 2014 through games of December 13 Saturday

119 Old Dominion A = 57.24 6 6 61.27( 100) 0 0 | 0 0 | 56.82 119 | 56.74 123 | 58.07

Regardless of where they were actually ranked, I think the PRIMARY reason people keep bringing up the ODU loss is because it is the only one where 'doing a few things better' might have made any difference whatsoever... or where we didn't perform like our ultimate ranking. All of our other losses were by 4+ scores.

(12-19-2014 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 10:57 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ODU was not the 119th ranked team this year. Just a reminder.

I think we can all agree that rankings, especially as they reach the higher numbers are highly suspect, but this is where my number came from.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

College Football 2014 through games of December 13 Saturday

119 Old Dominion A = 57.24 6 6 61.27( 100) 0 0 | 0 0 | 56.82 119 | 56.74 123 | 58.07

Regardless of where they were actually ranked, I think the PRIMARY reason people keep bringing up the ODU loss is because it is the only one where 'doing a few things better' might have made any difference whatsoever... or where we didn't perform like our ultimate ranking. All of our other losses were by 4+ scores.

Even if ODU was 89 and not 109, they are still a 6-6 C-USA team. Which makes them not very good. They may not have been the worst team in C-USA, but they weren't a good team either.

Not sure where this discussion is going.

(12-19-2014 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 10:57 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ODU was not the 119th ranked team this year. Just a reminder.

I think we can all agree that rankings, especially as they reach the higher numbers are highly suspect, but this is where my number came from.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/

College Football 2014 through games of December 13 Saturday

119 Old Dominion A = 57.24 6 6 61.27( 100) 0 0 | 0 0 | 56.82 119 | 56.74 123 | 58.07

Regardless of where they were actually ranked, I think the PRIMARY reason people keep bringing up the ODU loss is because it is the only one where 'doing a few things better' might have made any difference whatsoever... or where we didn't perform like our ultimate ranking. All of our other losses were by 4+ scores.

Even if ODU was 89 and not 109, they are still a 6-6 C-USA team. Which makes them not very good. They may not have been the worst team in C-USA, but they weren't a good team either.

Not sure where this discussion is going.

Do any of us know where any of these conversations are going?

And to keep it spinning, didn't ODU beat La Tech?

(12-18-2014 05:19 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 05:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Allowing 17 points in a half to ODU is NOT playing decent defense.

Okay, fair enough, but it's not nearly as bad as the 28 in the first half. My point was that the defense's worst was before the injuries really piled up.

One thing that seems to be forgotten but that I think had a big influence on the outcome of the game was an injury on the offense, Driphus Jackson. The offense ran notably better while he was in. When he was in the game, the Owls outscored the Monarchs 35-24; when he wasn't, ODU had a 21-7 edge. Jackson came back to play the second half, when ODU "only" scored 17 points. I think part of the decreased scoring was simply that, with Jackson back at the helm, the offense kept the ball longer, meaning ODU had fewer opportunities to score points. It was an example of how the best defense is a good offense.

this thread has reached the point where I point out a regrettable coaching decision just before halftime to attempt a long field goal, which was missed, and following which ODU scored a TD

(12-20-2014 09:09 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  this thread has reached the point where I point out a regrettable coaching decision just before halftime to attempt a long field goal, which was missed, and following which ODU scored a TD

It is also regrettable that I am choosing to prolong this thread by pointing out that I agree with you- that was poor decision

Quote about Mensa in today's Chronicle story by Randy Harvey.



"Rhoades didn't have to sell UH to Herman, who has wanted to be the head coach there since he was a Rice assistant under David Bailiff in 2007-08."