(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:19 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 03:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 03:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Invited to a P5. We'll always get our share of signature wins here and there.

1. Please elaborate. Right now, its a sweeping declaration with no backing
2. Still waiting for our first signature win in the DB era

Houston in 2008 and Marshall in 2013. A "signature win" doesn't have to be an unexpected win against a P5 member. Beating Purdue was also a "signature win."

As for not ever getting into a P5 conference, the reasons it will never happen are glaringly obvious and have been listed to death on this board.

Sorry, but they were NOT signature wins. The wins you mention above were certainly important to our program (save for Purdue???), but not to anyone outside of Rice or our conference. A signature win is widely perceived as one that garners national attention (and helps change the perception of the program) and, consequently, necessarily is one against a prominent and widely perceived perennial football power.

As for the possibility of a future invite into a P5, we certainly have work to do, but it is by no means an impossibility. I can tell you from personal conversations that David Leebron, Joe Karlgaard and most on our BOT do not think it will never happen. In fact, they are united in their effort to do what it takes to make it a realistic possibility. Of course, there are no guarantees, and it will require a lot of things falling in place to our benefit (as it did for TCU), but there is going to be further P5 realignment, and we need to position ourselves as best as possible for that occurrence.

Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

And sure, I agree Rice needs to keep building for the future, if not for a P5 invitation, just to keep up with everyone else and not be lost into oblivion.

My definition of a signature win is the widely accepted definition. How is it a signature win if it doesn't register with the national college football audience? No one is holding Bailiff to a higher standard than previous Rice coaches or any other coach in the country. The guy is 0 - 51 against top 50 opponents since he arrived at Rice-- and we've only been competitive in a couple of those games. Note-- we're not talking Top 25 here, but rather Top 50, and he's only won one or two games against Top 75 ranked opponents in his 9 years here. Those are the facts. Hard to call yourself a Top 75 team when you cannot beat a Top 75 team.

A little perspective. Again, Bailiff has brought the program to a point of respectability where we now usually beat teams worse than us, and beat up on the bottom quartile of the FBS division....but we still have a hard time competing, let alone beating, teams even slightly better than us.

I don't have the energy to do this again. Whatever you say waltgreenberg.

No matter your perspective, I think we can all agree that the 2015 football season will be hugely important for Rice and the head Coach. Only one regular-season game outside the state of Texas. A schedule with some games that can make people outside take note. An upward trend currently. A senior QB and many other good weapons. Some new blood. 9th year in this system and continuity of recent assistant coaches. Let's hope this is a year we can pat the team and staff on the back for NEW accomplishments.

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

Assuming your definition is correct and that a signature win is an upset. The fact that beating UH and Marshall are "upsets" says a whole lot about low standards .

To me, signature wins are ones that the average fan cares about.

I still don't think Marshall and UH fit either of our definitions.

(01-22-2015 09:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:19 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 03:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  1. Please elaborate. Right now, its a sweeping declaration with no backing
2. Still waiting for our first signature win in the DB era

Houston in 2008 and Marshall in 2013. A "signature win" doesn't have to be an unexpected win against a P5 member. Beating Purdue was also a "signature win."

As for not ever getting into a P5 conference, the reasons it will never happen are glaringly obvious and have been listed to death on this board.

Sorry, but they were NOT signature wins. The wins you mention above were certainly important to our program (save for Purdue???), but not to anyone outside of Rice or our conference. A signature win is widely perceived as one that garners national attention (and helps change the perception of the program) and, consequently, necessarily is one against a prominent and widely perceived perennial football power.

As for the possibility of a future invite into a P5, we certainly have work to do, but it is by no means an impossibility. I can tell you from personal conversations that David Leebron, Joe Karlgaard and most on our BOT do not think it will never happen. In fact, they are united in their effort to do what it takes to make it a realistic possibility. Of course, there are no guarantees, and it will require a lot of things falling in place to our benefit (as it did for TCU), but there is going to be further P5 realignment, and we need to position ourselves as best as possible for that occurrence.

Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

And sure, I agree Rice needs to keep building for the future, if not for a P5 invitation, just to keep up with everyone else and not be lost into oblivion.

My definition of a signature win is the widely accepted definition. How is it a signature win if it doesn't register with the national college football audience? No one is holding Bailiff to a higher standard than previous Rice coaches or any other coach in the country. The guy is 0 - 51 against top 50 opponents since he arrived at Rice-- and we've only been competitive in a couple of those games. Note-- we're not talking Top 25 here, but rather Top 50, and he's only won one or two games against Top 75 ranked opponents in his 9 years here. Those are the facts. Hard to call yourself a Top 75 team when you cannot beat a Top 75 team.

A little perspective. Again, Bailiff has brought the program to a point of respectability where we now usually beat teams worse than us, and beat up on the bottom quartile of the FBS division....but we still have a hard time competing, let alone beating, teams even slightly better than us.

Walt, can you at least write the numbers down and keep them consistent somewhere. Jonathon's numbers showed that Rice has played 29 games against teams in the top two quartiles (which would be more than Top 50) since 2007 began. WRC has us with a Top 50 wins. Earlier, IIRC you were reporting we were 0-25 and/or 0-26.

Now in this post you have Rice at 0-51 against Top 50.

No one's arguing the point you keep repeating, but could we at least (1) try and look at the most positive rating system, not grab the one that makes the point look as bad as you can, and (2) not let the number bounce around and suddenly pick up 18 losses to make the numbers look worse.

No, it's not a good record against P5 and upper tier G5. But we are all Rice fans and we don't have to look at it in the worst light we can possibly find, and then exaggerate on top of that (not intentionally in all likelihood, but in the froth of making Bailiff look bad just getting overly emphatic is my guess).

(01-22-2015 10:43 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

Assuming your definition is correct and that a signature win is an upset. The fact that beating UH and Marshall are "upsets" says a whole lot about low standards .

To me, signature wins are ones that the average fan cares about.

I still don't think Marshall and UH fit either of our definitions.

Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:19 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Houston in 2008 and Marshall in 2013. A "signature win" doesn't have to be an unexpected win against a P5 member. Beating Purdue was also a "signature win."

As for not ever getting into a P5 conference, the reasons it will never happen are glaringly obvious and have been listed to death on this board.

Sorry, but they were NOT signature wins. The wins you mention above were certainly important to our program (save for Purdue???), but not to anyone outside of Rice or our conference. A signature win is widely perceived as one that garners national attention (and helps change the perception of the program) and, consequently, necessarily is one against a prominent and widely perceived perennial football power.

As for the possibility of a future invite into a P5, we certainly have work to do, but it is by no means an impossibility. I can tell you from personal conversations that David Leebron, Joe Karlgaard and most on our BOT do not think it will never happen. In fact, they are united in their effort to do what it takes to make it a realistic possibility. Of course, there are no guarantees, and it will require a lot of things falling in place to our benefit (as it did for TCU), but there is going to be further P5 realignment, and we need to position ourselves as best as possible for that occurrence.

Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

And sure, I agree Rice needs to keep building for the future, if not for a P5 invitation, just to keep up with everyone else and not be lost into oblivion.

My definition of a signature win is the widely accepted definition. How is it a signature win if it doesn't register with the national college football audience? No one is holding Bailiff to a higher standard than previous Rice coaches or any other coach in the country. The guy is 0 - 51 against top 50 opponents since he arrived at Rice-- and we've only been competitive in a couple of those games. Note-- we're not talking Top 25 here, but rather Top 50, and he's only won one or two games against Top 75 ranked opponents in his 9 years here. Those are the facts. Hard to call yourself a Top 75 team when you cannot beat a Top 75 team.

A little perspective. Again, Bailiff has brought the program to a point of respectability where we now usually beat teams worse than us, and beat up on the bottom quartile of the FBS division....but we still have a hard time competing, let alone beating, teams even slightly better than us.

Walt, can you at least write the numbers down and keep them consistent somewhere. Jonathon's numbers showed that Rice has played 29 games against teams in the top two quartiles (which would be more than Top 50) since 2007 began. WRC has us with a Top 50 wins. Earlier, IIRC you were reporting we were 0-25 and/or 0-26.

Now in this post you have Rice at 0-51 against Top 50.

No one's arguing the point you keep repeating, but could we at least (1) try and look at the most positive rating system, not grab the one that makes the point look as bad as you can, and (2) not let the number bounce around and suddenly pick up 18 losses to make the numbers look worse.

No, it's not a good record against P5 and upper tier G5. But we are all Rice fans and we don't have to look at it in the worst light we can possibly find, and then exaggerate on top of that (not intentionally in all likelihood, but in the froth of making Bailiff look bad just getting overly emphatic is my guess).

My mistake, Rick. I had always used the 0 - 25 number until someone did the research and said it was 0 - 26 vs. Top 50. Sorry about the 0-51 used in my earlier post, as it was an inadvertent slip; not an intentional exaggeration made for emphasis. And I only keep repeat it for perspective when someone keeps bringing up how good we've been. Let's call a spade a spade-- it's a horrible record against the Top 75; not simply "not good"....and it's not only against the "top tier G5s. Bottom line is we have only won games against the 2nd tier G5s. Now that's certainly a step up from where we were, but it's not something to crow about or talk about the positive trending when we still can't beat a team ranked even in the Top 75.

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 10:43 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

Assuming your definition is correct and that a signature win is an upset. The fact that beating UH and Marshall are "upsets" says a whole lot about low standards .

To me, signature wins are ones that the average fan cares about.

I still don't think Marshall and UH fit either of our definitions.

Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

Walt, there is no one definition of a signature win. It's an arbitrary term. I understand your definition, and I don't doubt there are lots of people who have a similar definition to yours, but the specifics of which teams 'count' and under which circumstances for the teams count differ slightly from person to person. (i.e., beating Arkansas may count at 8-4, but not at 2-9 . . . . Is Appalachian State's win over Michigan really a signature win if they then fall into a ten year span where no one hears from them again?).

The 'assurances' and claims to 'know' are meaningless and at best only partially accurate.

Your definition is fine. Not picking on it. But you don't 'own' it, and it's fine if others vary from yours a little . . . . or in Afflicted's case, even a lot.

(01-22-2015 11:09 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 06:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but they were NOT signature wins. The wins you mention above were certainly important to our program (save for Purdue???), but not to anyone outside of Rice or our conference. A signature win is widely perceived as one that garners national attention (and helps change the perception of the program) and, consequently, necessarily is one against a prominent and widely perceived perennial football power.

As for the possibility of a future invite into a P5, we certainly have work to do, but it is by no means an impossibility. I can tell you from personal conversations that David Leebron, Joe Karlgaard and most on our BOT do not think it will never happen. In fact, they are united in their effort to do what it takes to make it a realistic possibility. Of course, there are no guarantees, and it will require a lot of things falling in place to our benefit (as it did for TCU), but there is going to be further P5 realignment, and we need to position ourselves as best as possible for that occurrence.

Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

And sure, I agree Rice needs to keep building for the future, if not for a P5 invitation, just to keep up with everyone else and not be lost into oblivion.

My definition of a signature win is the widely accepted definition. How is it a signature win if it doesn't register with the national college football audience? No one is holding Bailiff to a higher standard than previous Rice coaches or any other coach in the country. The guy is 0 - 51 against top 50 opponents since he arrived at Rice-- and we've only been competitive in a couple of those games. Note-- we're not talking Top 25 here, but rather Top 50, and he's only won one or two games against Top 75 ranked opponents in his 9 years here. Those are the facts. Hard to call yourself a Top 75 team when you cannot beat a Top 75 team.

A little perspective. Again, Bailiff has brought the program to a point of respectability where we now usually beat teams worse than us, and beat up on the bottom quartile of the FBS division....but we still have a hard time competing, let alone beating, teams even slightly better than us.

Walt, can you at least write the numbers down and keep them consistent somewhere. Jonathon's numbers showed that Rice has played 29 games against teams in the top two quartiles (which would be more than Top 50) since 2007 began. WRC has us with a Top 50 wins. Earlier, IIRC you were reporting we were 0-25 and/or 0-26.

Now in this post you have Rice at 0-51 against Top 50.

No one's arguing the point you keep repeating, but could we at least (1) try and look at the most positive rating system, not grab the one that makes the point look as bad as you can, and (2) not let the number bounce around and suddenly pick up 18 losses to make the numbers look worse.

No, it's not a good record against P5 and upper tier G5. But we are all Rice fans and we don't have to look at it in the worst light we can possibly find, and then exaggerate on top of that (not intentionally in all likelihood, but in the froth of making Bailiff look bad just getting overly emphatic is my guess).

My mistake, Rick. I had always used the 0 - 25 number until someone did the research and said it was 0 - 26 vs. Top 50. Sorry about the 0-51 used in my earlier post, as it was an inadvertent slip; not an intentional exaggeration made for emphasis. And I only keep repeat it for perspective when someone keeps bringing up how good we've been. Let's call a spade a spade-- it's a horrible record against the Top 75; not simply "not good"....and it's not only against the "top tier G5s. Bottom line is we have only won games against the 2nd tier G5s. Now that's certainly a step up from where we were, but it's not something to crow about or talk about the positive trending when we still can't beat a team ranked even in the Top 75.

Again, our record against Top 50 is not good. Use horrible as you state. But I believe WRC has us with 1 win against Top 50, and either he or Jonathon had us at 2-1 against the 50-75 bracket over the last 2 or 3 years.

We are clearly not Boise or TCU. As you recall, I not only encouraged getting TCU's numbers broken down, I suggested time frames. I think they are clearly the top 2 examples of successful G5's over the last 15 years, even if TCU no longer is in that group. They have been Top 50 programs over that span, and Top 25 over much of that span.

To get to that level, we've got to get to the Marshall, ECU, Fresno level first. At the very least, we've shown we can play with that group, even if we don't win 100% of the time yet. If we get to Top 50, it will mean we're also Top 10 G5. I think that is attainable. We're closer to that level than we've been since 1996-97.

I will enjoy it when we get there. I want to enjoy it on the way.

Rice comes up on the SEC board in realignment discussions from time to time, usually in regards to the B1G, where I have advocated for them possibly getting a spot in the B1G scenario JRSec laid out.

Rice to the ACC has not come up in those discussions, but it makes a lot of sense if the ACC doesn't have to take B12 schools exclusively (i.e. to dissolve the conference to get rid of the GoR). If Texas goes the ACC on a partial membership, they would want a couple TX schools in the ACC as travel partners and keep in touch with their Texas roots. TCU and one of Houston/Rice would be ideal. Though both TCU and Rice would be far from the rest of the ACC they would both be in easy to fly to locations in the 2 hot beds of recruiting in Texas.

JRSEC is also right about the PAC if the B12 breaks up and they do not land Texas and OU they will come for some schools in Texas to get more households for their network, and it is almost certain one will be in Houston. Rice is an academic gem and Stanford and Cal would be in your corner.

I'd also say as an extremely long shot, if the B12 survives as a power conference, Rice could end up in the B12, if one of the Texas schools without a Longhorn for a mascot defected to another conference. If the B12 wanted to maintain 4 schools in Texas (unlikely, but possible) they would surely look to Rice or Houston (possibly SMU if TCU was the defector). Rice has a much better relationship with Texas and the other B12 TX schools and KU and ISU would probably be in your corner as well. Texas is less than thrilled with current B12 academics so a school like Rice or Tulane who are stellar academically have appeal to them. I think you might get the call over Houston there. You would be the B12's Vanderbilt or Northwestern.

Rice might have an only an outside chance at a power conference, but there is a chance. Your academics, AAU membership, and Houston, TX location would be your strongest assets. Conferences like the PAC, ACC, and especially the B1G value academics highly and all covet the Texas market. You are definitely a dark horse candidate to land somewhere nice.

(01-23-2015 12:35 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Rice comes up on the SEC board in realignment discussions from time to time, usually in regards to the B1G, where I have advocated for them possibly getting a spot in the B1G scenario JRSec laid out.

Rice to the ACC has not come up in those discussions, but it makes a lot of sense if the ACC doesn't have to take B12 schools exclusively (i.e. to dissolve the conference to get rid of the GoR). If Texas goes the ACC on a partial membership, they would want a couple TX schools in the ACC as travel partners and keep in touch with their Texas roots. TCU and one of Houston/Rice would be ideal. Though both TCU and Rice would be far from the rest of the ACC they would both be in easy to fly to locations in the 2 hot beds of recruiting in Texas.

JRSEC is also right about the PAC if the B12 breaks up and they do not land Texas and OU they will come for some schools in Texas to get more households for their network, and it is almost certain one will be in Houston. Rice is an academic gem and Stanford and Cal would be in your corner.

I'd also say as an extremely long shot, if the B12 survives as a power conference, Rice could end up in the B12, if one of the Texas schools without a Longhorn for a mascot defected to another conference. If the B12 wanted to maintain 4 schools in Texas (unlikely, but possible) they would surely look to Rice or Houston (possibly SMU if TCU was the defector). Rice has a much better relationship with Texas and the other B12 TX schools and KU and ISU would probably be in your corner as well. Texas is less than thrilled with current B12 academics so a school like Rice or Tulane who are stellar academically have appeal to them. I think you might get the call over Houston there. You would be the B12's Vanderbilt or Northwestern.

Rice might have an only an outside chance at a power conference, but there is a chance. Your academics, AAU membership, and Houston, TX location would be your strongest assets. Conferences like the PAC, ACC, and especially the B1G value academics highly and all covet the Texas market. You are definitely a dark horse candidate to land somewhere nice.

+1000. Precisely. It's why we're a much more attractive target than many of the higher profile G5 programs. Yes, we still have work to do in several areas (revenues, on-field performance), but that's why, IMO, is so critical that we get to the "next level" sooner rather than later...and by "next level" I mean being consistently competitive against Top 50 opponents, and pulling off the occasional upset.

(01-22-2015 10:43 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 09:17 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Your definition of signature win is too narrow. It's what I would call a major upset. Fred Goldsmith got one against Baylor in 1992 and Ken Hatfield got his against Texas in 1994. By your definition, Bailff doesn't have one yet, but he shouldn't be held to a higher standard than past Rice football coaches. Bailiff certainly does have a number of big wins.

Assuming your definition is correct and that a signature win is an upset. The fact that beating UH and Marshall are "upsets" says a whole lot about low standards .

To me, signature wins are ones that the average fan cares about.

I still don't think Marshall and UH fit either of our definitions.

Read it again.

"Signature win" is a nebulous term without a precise definition. So why quibble over it. I think it's kind of like Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, we'll know it when we get one. Given where this program has been, there was a time when ANY win was probably a signature win.

We just need to get better, and keep getting better. If we do that, the rest will come.

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

That's why I say it's like Potter Stewart and pornography. We'll know it when it happens. Until then, just focus on getting better and better.

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

Perhaps because even in that season we did not beat any team ranked inside the Top 75. Again, being ranked #35 is pretty meaningless if you failed to beat a single team ranked inside the Top 50 - 70. No one outside of Rice or CUSA will notice or care.

(01-23-2015 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

Perhaps because even in that season we did not beat any team ranked inside the Top 75. Again, being ranked #35 is pretty meaningless if you failed to beat a single team ranked inside the Top 50 - 70. No one outside of Rice or CUSA will notice or care.

...Massey's ranking for UH that year was 58. And his ranking for Southern Miss was 69.

Not sure (don't know how to get to previous weeks in archived seasons on Massey), but given that WMU was 72 after we beat them (rather handily), I would wager that they were in that 50-70 range going into bowl season as well (though that does, in fact, not matter as much). They were still Top 75, though (by at least one metric; not sure how to get to the archives of Massey's composite).

ETA: found the Massey composite as well. Rice beat #50 (final composite ranking) Houston, #56 (final composite ranking) WMU, and #63 composite Southern Miss (who I totally forgot about when first writing this, because I forgot that Southern Miss used to be really good).

Definitely no signature wins in there...but not nearly the exclusive stacking-up-on-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor you describe.

(01-23-2015 05:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

Perhaps because even in that season we did not beat any team ranked inside the Top 75. Again, being ranked #35 is pretty meaningless if you failed to beat a single team ranked inside the Top 50 - 70. No one outside of Rice or CUSA will notice or care.

...Massey's ranking for UH that year was 58. And his ranking for Southern Miss was 69.

Not sure (don't know how to get to previous weeks in archived seasons on Massey), but given that WMU was 72 after we beat them (rather handily), I would wager that they were in that 50-70 range going into bowl season as well (though that does, in fact, not matter as much). They were still Top 75, though (by at least one metric; not sure how to get to the archives of Massey's composite).

ETA: found the Massey composite as well. Rice beat #50 (final composite ranking) Houston, #56 (final composite ranking) WMU, and #63 composite Southern Miss (who I totally forgot about when first writing this, because I forgot that Southern Miss used to be really good).

Definitely no signature wins in there...but not nearly the exclusive stacking-up-on-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor you describe.

And if you go by Massey, this past year, we did not beat a single team ranked above #95 UTEP. Upward trending?

(01-23-2015 05:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

Perhaps because even in that season we did not beat any team ranked inside the Top 75. Again, being ranked #35 is pretty meaningless if you failed to beat a single team ranked inside the Top 50 - 70. No one outside of Rice or CUSA will notice or care.

...Massey's ranking for UH that year was 58. And his ranking for Southern Miss was 69.

Not sure (don't know how to get to previous weeks in archived seasons on Massey), but given that WMU was 72 after we beat them (rather handily), I would wager that they were in that 50-70 range going into bowl season as well (though that does, in fact, not matter as much). They were still Top 75, though (by at least one metric; not sure how to get to the archives of Massey's composite).

ETA: found the Massey composite as well. Rice beat #50 (final composite ranking) Houston, #56 (final composite ranking) WMU, and #63 composite Southern Miss (who I totally forgot about when first writing this, because I forgot that Southern Miss used to be really good).

Definitely no signature wins in there...but not nearly the exclusive stacking-up-on-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor you describe.

And if you go by Massey, this past year, we did not beat a single team ranked above #95 UTEP. Upward trending?

#82 UTEP in Massey composite (which I45 was using). Valid point, but it only goes so far. I made the point earlier in another thread that Rice's schedule was very bimodal this season, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions (or easy to argue, take your pick ). Rice didn't play anyone between #37 and #82 in the composite rankings. We lost to all the top 40 teams by 4+ touchdowns, so we certainly aren't close to the top 40. However, we also beat the sub-80 teams (save #92 ODU) by 2-3 TDs each, so we're not close to bottom 40 either. Hard to tell where in the middle we really fall, though. If you look at the distribution of the ratings which go into the Massey composite, Rice has a fairly high std distribution (>10), with a high rating of #41 (from Warren Nolan), and a low rating of #96 (on the Fremeau Efficieny Index, whatever that is). I don't believe either of those ratings, but I'm certain we're somewhere in the middle.

(01-23-2015 05:28 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:16 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 02:24 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Of course a "signature win" is a major upset. Like, no kidding. I can assure you that my definition of a "signature win" is the one held by the vast majority of college football fans, and I know it's the definition held by Dr. K and others in the athletic department.

As an alternate definition, I'd suggest that a signature win is one that cements everyone's opinion of Rice belonging in the top 50, if not top 30. So, I'd suggest context is important, but going 2-10 with one of those wins being an upset of a top 25 team would be meaningless. Rice did finish 2008 among the top 35 or so teams, but without winning its division and lacking a "signature win", I'm not sure that Rice had the respect that other programs that finish with similar ratings generally garner.

Perhaps because even in that season we did not beat any team ranked inside the Top 75. Again, being ranked #35 is pretty meaningless if you failed to beat a single team ranked inside the Top 50 - 70. No one outside of Rice or CUSA will notice or care.

...Massey's ranking for UH that year was 58. And his ranking for Southern Miss was 69.

Not sure (don't know how to get to previous weeks in archived seasons on Massey), but given that WMU was 72 after we beat them (rather handily), I would wager that they were in that 50-70 range going into bowl season as well (though that does, in fact, not matter as much). They were still Top 75, though (by at least one metric; not sure how to get to the archives of Massey's composite).

ETA: found the Massey composite as well. Rice beat #50 (final composite ranking) Houston, #56 (final composite ranking) WMU, and #63 composite Southern Miss (who I totally forgot about when first writing this, because I forgot that Southern Miss used to be really good).

Definitely no signature wins in there...but not nearly the exclusive stacking-up-on-Little-Sisters-of-the-Poor you describe.

And if you go by Massey, this past year, we did not beat a single team ranked above #95 UTEP. Upward trending?

Several things here.

1) I'm not one of the ones who have been harping on the upward trend. Do I think we've been on one? Yes. And I think even you would admit that the team has, for the most part, been improving in recent years.

2) Yes, we haven't beaten up on higher-quality teams recently the way we did when Clement/Dillard/Casey all came together. And in the past few years, baseball hasn't beaten up on teams nearly as much as we did in '03 with Niemann/Townsend/Humber, no? Outliers are outliers for a reason.* ETA: this comparison is horrifically bad and is intended for noting transcendent combinations of players only, not implying that football in 2008 was anywhere close to Rice baseball since the advent of Wayne.

3) We've (using the royal "we" to refer to the board as a whole) been over the numbers. Regardless of what you personally see, pretty much any "objective" (objective in quotes because, while the raw data and mathematical formulas are set in stone, the people creating the formulas are, well, people) ranking notes that while there has been some fall-off in quality, it's nowhere near where you're making it out to be, and that the improvement is not nearly as exclusively driven by changing strength of schedule as you seem so enamored of implying.


*This is not to imply that 2003 was an outlier year for us (though, given that it's the one national title we've won in any sport, it's an outlier for the Rice experience). Just noting that having transcendental players coming together at the right time does help.