Anyone know if we are actively recruiting anyone else? Or is our class set?

(12-02-2015 06:22 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  a few rankings of Bailiff's next incoming class for your perusal:

from RankbyOffers.com:

#95 Rice Conference USA 17 1,447.55 85.15

from 24/7 Sports.com

#94 Rice 17 0 0 2 78.26 97.15

from Scout.com:

67. Western Kentucky
72. Southern Mississippi
77. Marshall
87. Florida International
t94. Rice
98. Florida Atlantic
105. UAB
107. Louisiana Tech
113. Old Dominion
115. Texas-San Antonio
118. Charlotte
t120. Middle Tennessee State
t120. UTEP
t125. North Texas

94 is a sad-looking number, but it still puts us at the top of CUSA-West

Exactly.

(11-22-2015 10:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So we have two assumptions here I find lacking:
1. Recruits can't find the Parliament/ignore what's on it
2. Opposing coaches are too ethical to use our troubles against us.

Try some different assumptions:

1. Anybody whom Rice is recruiting knows that Rice is 5-7.
2. If he's been to this website, he's been to others, and he knows that about 95% of the comments on here are way, way tamer than anything on anybody else's boards when they fall to anything approaching 5-7.
3. The line other schools are using is that Rice doesn't care about football.
4. He reasonably concludes that Rice doesn't care as much about football as those other places where 5-7 or anything approaching that produces far more virulent reactions.

Do you find those lacking?

(12-02-2015 07:45 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 06:22 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  a few rankings of Bailiff's next incoming class for your perusal:
from RankbyOffers.com:
#95 Rice Conference USA 17 1,447.55 85.15
from 24/7 Sports.com
#94 Rice 17 0 0 2 78.26 97.15
from Scout.com:
67. Western Kentucky
72. Southern Mississippi
77. Marshall
87. Florida International
t94. Rice
98. Florida Atlantic
105. UAB
107. Louisiana Tech
113. Old Dominion
115. Texas-San Antonio
118. Charlotte
t120. Middle Tennessee State
t120. UTEP
t125. North Texas

94 is a sad-looking number, but it still puts us at the top of CUSA-West

Exactly.

Umm, I think Southern Miss at 72 is top of CUSA-West.

We'd love to be better ranked, but so many of our best players were 2-stars and so many of the 3-stars we get have been busts that at this point the recruiting rankings don't mean a lot.

Per 247, only two G5 teams are ranked in the top 50 in 2016 recruiting. UH is one of them. The other is from C-USA...UAB!

(12-02-2015 04:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  a few rankings of Bailiff's next incoming class for your perusal:

from RankbyOffers.com:

#95 Rice Conference USA 17 1,447.55 85.15

from 24/7 Sports.com

#94 Rice 17 0 0 2 78.26 97.15

from Scout.com:

67. Western Kentucky
72. Southern Mississippi
77. Marshall
87. Florida International
t94. Rice
98. Florida Atlantic
105. UAB
107. Louisiana Tech
113. Old Dominion
115. Texas-San Antonio
118. Charlotte
t120. Middle Tennessee State
t120. UTEP
t125. North Texas

So far, Rice recruiting is at a consensus #94-95. Not sure the bar is going to be raised all that much in the future unless all three of those sites are dead wrong.

Curious you didn't include Rivals, which has the class ranked tied for 86th (along with Georgia Tech and Indiana, granted they have far fewer commits at this point).

Within CUSA they rank us 8th, and 3rd in the West behind USM and LT.

(12-02-2015 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 10:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So we have two assumptions here I find lacking:
1. Recruits can't find the Parliament/ignore what's on it
2. Opposing coaches are too ethical to use our troubles against us.

Try some different assumptions:

1. Anybody whom Rice is recruiting knows that Rice is 5-7.
2. If he's been to this website, he's been to others, and he knows that about 95% of the comments on here are way, way tamer than anything on anybody else's boards when they fall to anything approaching 5-7.
3. The line other schools are using is that Rice doesn't care about football.
4. He reasonably concludes that Rice doesn't care as much about football as those other places where 5-7 or anything approaching that produces far more virulent reactions.

Do you find those lacking?

If I'm reading this right, you are saying I've been helping our recruiting efforts. Glad to know I can be useful sometimes.

(12-02-2015 09:02 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  We'd love to be better ranked, but so many of our best players were 2-stars and so many of the 3-stars we get have been busts that at this point the recruiting rankings don't mean a lot.

Per 247, only two G5 teams are ranked in the top 50 in 2016 recruiting. UH is one of them. The other is from C-USA...UAB!

Yes the ranking are biased towards the P5s, especially moreso these days it seems. Yes, we have to consistently find 2*s or less and turn them into all-conference to have a chance. But also true is that generally having classes ranked closer to the top, even in these biased lists, bodes better for your overall chances than having ones ranked closer to the bottom.

(12-02-2015 08:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:45 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 06:22 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  a few rankings of Bailiff's next incoming class for your perusal:
from RankbyOffers.com:
#95 Rice Conference USA 17 1,447.55 85.15
from 24/7 Sports.com
#94 Rice 17 0 0 2 78.26 97.15
from Scout.com:
67. Western Kentucky
72. Southern Mississippi
77. Marshall
87. Florida International
t94. Rice
98. Florida Atlantic
105. UAB
107. Louisiana Tech
113. Old Dominion
115. Texas-San Antonio
118. Charlotte
t120. Middle Tennessee State
t120. UTEP
t125. North Texas

94 is a sad-looking number, but it still puts us at the top of CUSA-West

Exactly.

Umm, I think Southern Miss at 72 is top of CUSA-West.

By golly you're right. So, second to top of CUSA West. It's hard to keep all these directional schools straight anymore, but that was my point with the word "exactly." Then again, by "at the top" BLB might have meant near the top.

Are the rankings a function of number of recruits (i.e. total number of stars)? In that case, teams with fewer slots available will look worse. How many are in this class?

(12-02-2015 09:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:45 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 06:22 PM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  a few rankings of Bailiff's next incoming class for your perusal:
from RankbyOffers.com:
#95 Rice Conference USA 17 1,447.55 85.15
from 24/7 Sports.com
#94 Rice 17 0 0 2 78.26 97.15
from Scout.com:
67. Western Kentucky
72. Southern Mississippi
77. Marshall
87. Florida International
t94. Rice
98. Florida Atlantic
105. UAB
107. Louisiana Tech
113. Old Dominion
115. Texas-San Antonio
118. Charlotte
t120. Middle Tennessee State
t120. UTEP
t125. North Texas

94 is a sad-looking number, but it still puts us at the top of CUSA-West

Exactly.

Umm, I think Southern Miss at 72 is top of CUSA-West.

By golly you're right. So, second to top of CUSA West. It's hard to keep all these directional schools straight anymore, but that was my point with the word "exactly." Then again, by "at the top" BLB might have meant near the top.

Yes, DB is a fantastic recruiter, placing right above the bottom 25% FBS teams!. i am sure the future is bright!!

Oh, so admission standards aren't a factor in Rice recruiting, huh Hawaii ? It's all on Bailiff. I see.........and while we're at it I guess you want to ignore the JUCO issue as being irrelevant as well.

We have the top ranked MBB class this year in the conference.
http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Basketb...ence=C-USA
It can be done with the right couching staff in any sport.

(12-03-2015 09:20 PM)davidw Wrote:  Oh, so admission standards aren't a factor in Rice recruiting, huh Hawaii ? It's all on Bailiff. I see.........and while we're at it I guess you want to ignore the JUCO issue as being irrelevant as well.

(12-03-2015 09:20 PM)davidw Wrote:  Oh, so admission standards aren't a factor in Rice recruiting, huh Hawaii ? It's all on Bailiff. I see.........and while we're at it I guess you want to ignore the JUCO issue as being irrelevant as well.

it is constantly stated that he (DB) is a good recruiter. To me that would imply he would clearly be better than his peer group. So, based on this years performance, maybe he is better than the lowest 20%. Another often stated remark is that we just don't have the athletes. So which is it? He can't recruit, or he can and he can't coach?
I don't remember commenting on admissions standards or JUCO's, just on a recruiting ranking( that, IMO, clearly won't get us to a top 25 program, especially w this coaching.
\

Using the ratings on the recruiting sites is foolish. I don't know whether Bailiff is a good recruiter or not, but relying on those sites just doesn't provide much useful data for football recruits who are not in the top few tiers. Just too many players out there for the sites to do a good job, and the guys working for those sites and doing the evaluating just aren't the greatest scouts.

Just my opinion, of course!

(12-03-2015 10:13 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Using the ratings on the recruiting sites is foolish. I don't know whether Bailiff is a good recruiter or not, but relying on those sites just doesn't provide much useful data for football recruits who are not in the top few tiers. Just too many players out there for the sites to do a good job, and the guys working for those sites and doing the evaluating just aren't the greatest scouts.

Just my opinion, of course!

I can't claim enough knowledge to crtique the sites. Based on our apparent defecits even facing CUSA opponents, does not appear we've done a good job at maintaining a high level of athleticism. I guess it could just be the coaching, or both. TCU's recruits have not historically matched those of UT, A&M etc, but they seem to get results.

(12-03-2015 09:20 PM)davidw Wrote:  Oh, so admission standards aren't a factor in Rice recruiting, huh Hawaii ? It's all on Bailiff. I see.........and while we're at it I guess you want to ignore the JUCO issue as being irrelevant as well.

Can you please state your understanding of the JUCO issue in either question form or hypothesis form?

Here is my previously stated hypothesis on JUCO's--If you look across the whole of FBS or across the combination of FBS/FCS, there is an inverse correlation between number of JUCOs and quality of the team.

I would bet a small sum that the four playoff semfinalists collectively will have fewer JUCOs than the average single team in the bottom 10 on Massey FBS ratings. A few selected teams with good coaches win despite heavy reliance on JUCOs, note because of that reliance.

(12-03-2015 09:20 PM)davidw Wrote:  Oh, so admission standards aren't a factor in Rice recruiting, huh Hawaii ? It's all on Bailiff. I see.........and while we're at it I guess you want to ignore the JUCO issue as being irrelevant as well.

Those are real problems, but they are not going to change.

The question is whether we are going to find ways to overcome them, or use them as convenient excuses for failure.

So far, it's excuses 1, overcome 0.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. That needs to change.

I understand that our receivers and DBs are taller than the ones we used to recruit. Is that true? If so, does it indicate an improvement in recruiting?

(12-04-2015 06:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse.

I really don't think anybody here or on the athletic staff believes this.