(07-09-2015 03:21 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 10:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 03:54 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  I also don't believe that we are clearly better off than we were back in the '80s, so I want to debunk that notion as well. I mean, damn, have you seen that '85 schedule that ruowls posted a while back? Based on the performance of Bailiff's teams against quality opposition, his charges would go a very messy 0-11 against that kind of a slate (well, 1-10, because Rice would beat Lamar, who was always awful).

As noted by myself and others, its just hard to compare the college football landscape now with what existed 20+ years ago. The amount of money in the sport has exploded. The number of games on TV has exploded. Media and pseudo-media attention on recruiting has exploded. College coaching salaries have exploded. And it goes on. It is an interesting philisophical discussion (for another thread), but I question whether there is any value comparing a pre-Hatfield team with the current team.

So, using this line of logic, the '27 Yankees sucked.

No, but if you went back in a time machine and captured Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and dropped them into RF and 1B for the 2015 Yankees for the rest of the season, they would probably be some of the worst players in the majors. The game has changed a lot!

Just to note:

I'm not talking about the players themselves, because in those terms it is indeed impossible to directly compare eras (well, maybe not impossible, but challenging to be sure).

That '85 schedule included three teams that finished the season in the top ten, and perhaps as many as six others that were ranked at some point during the season (and when the rankings were still just the top 20).

Air Force and A&M both finished in the top five in one of the major polls. Miami was #2 going into the bowl games. And Rice was still in the SWC. That's rough sledding.

(07-09-2015 03:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 03:21 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 10:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 03:54 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  I also don't believe that we are clearly better off than we were back in the '80s, so I want to debunk that notion as well. I mean, damn, have you seen that '85 schedule that ruowls posted a while back? Based on the performance of Bailiff's teams against quality opposition, his charges would go a very messy 0-11 against that kind of a slate (well, 1-10, because Rice would beat Lamar, who was always awful).

As noted by myself and others, its just hard to compare the college football landscape now with what existed 20+ years ago. The amount of money in the sport has exploded. The number of games on TV has exploded. Media and pseudo-media attention on recruiting has exploded. College coaching salaries have exploded. And it goes on. It is an interesting philisophical discussion (for another thread), but I question whether there is any value comparing a pre-Hatfield team with the current team.

So, using this line of logic, the '27 Yankees sucked.

No, but if you went back in a time machine and captured Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig and dropped them into RF and 1B for the 2015 Yankees for the rest of the season, they would probably be some of the worst players in the majors. The game has changed a lot!

Well, Bill and Ted did just that and Socrates was still smart. Just saying....

(07-09-2015 04:01 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Just to note:

I'm not talking about the players themselves, because in those terms it is indeed impossible to compare eras (well, maybe not impossible, but challenging to be sure).

That '85 schedule included three teams that finished the season in the top ten, and perhaps as many as six others that were ranked at some point during the season (and when the rankings were still just the top 20).

Air Force and A&M both finished in the top five in one of the major polls. Miami was #2 going into the bowl games. And Rice was still in the SWC. That's rough sledding.

I wonder, was there more parity back in the day? Was it more common to see lower ranked teams upset the big boys, or did you still not often see the David's knock down the Goliath's? I wonder if all of the money involved has concentrated at the upper echelon of the football world and has created a world where you just don't see as many upsets anymore, or if it's been the opposite.

Maybe I'll find some time this weekend to take a look.

(07-09-2015 04:01 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Just to note:

I'm not talking about the players themselves, because in those terms it is indeed impossible to compare eras (well, maybe not impossible, but challenging to be sure).

That '85 schedule included three teams that finished the season in the top ten, and perhaps as many as six others that were ranked at some point during the season (and when the rankings were still just the top 20).

Air Force and A&M both finished in the top five in one of the major polls. Miami was #2 going into the bowl games. And Rice was still in the SWC. That's rough sledding.

Since you brought it up...
Final AP poll
A&M #6
Air Force #8
Miami #9
Arkansas #12
Baylor #17

Others highest rank during season
Texas #17
SMU #3

To be honest, I have a hard time understanding why you can't compare years. The rules of the game are pretty much the same. The goals are still to maximize your talent against others to win.

I'll say it again just how hard it was to be a Rice receiver in 1985. Rice had 5 different QBs that year with 4 different starters with 1 being a true freshman. There were 11 future NFL DBs we played against including 3 Pro Bowlers. 5 teams ranked in the Top 20 with 2 more in the Top 30. I'd gladly volunteer to get in the time machine and play now vs. then.

I think that is one of the disconnects. It all depends on what data you use to compare teams. It is difficult to compare "stats" to reach a conclusion on ability. Coaches employed different tactics then versus today. Therefore, the stats become skewed as a means of comparison. I look at observed production versus expected production. Even that is subjective as to what expected really means and how you quantify it. It is always going to be a matter of opinion. However, dismissing ability from another era because we don't know how to quantify it can be an equally flawed endeavor.

Honestly, we should to have a round table discussion with regards to coaching philosophy, schematic development and tactical decision making. That would be a lot of fun and we all chime in.

Every year I hope Rice will finish at or below my number. That's my reference point.

Right. I was a little off. Here's the UPI poll:

Air Force #5
aTm #7
Miami #8

And I agree with ruowls about players. The players in each post-segregation season (which is a little bit nebulous, but anyway...) have been the best available. Who's to say that they wouldn't have been able to compete in the present day with modern training and strength building techniques? I think they would have just upped their respective games. Athletes work very hard and do what they have to do to keep up, and then excel if possible.

Athletes have evolved. But they have evolved through every period. What matters is their output relative to their peers. Comparisons can be made across eras with some validity based on this.

(07-09-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 04:01 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Just to note:

I'm not talking about the players themselves, because in those terms it is indeed impossible to compare eras (well, maybe not impossible, but challenging to be sure).

That '85 schedule included three teams that finished the season in the top ten, and perhaps as many as six others that were ranked at some point during the season (and when the rankings were still just the top 20).

Air Force and A&M both finished in the top five in one of the major polls. Miami was #2 going into the bowl games. And Rice was still in the SWC. That's rough sledding.

I wonder, was there more parity back in the day? Was it more common to see lower ranked teams upset the big boys, or did you still not often see the David's knock down the Goliath's? I wonder if all of the money involved has concentrated at the upper echelon of the football world and has created a world where you just don't see as many upsets anymore, or if it's been the opposite.

Maybe I'll find some time this weekend to take a look.

This is a good question, and I cannot provide a definitive answer. What I do know is that Air Force was a completely different animal back in the '80s (very, very good). And the '85 season was really the one that portended Miami's run of dominance, because it demonstrated that '83 wasn't a fluke.

I think there was a power structure, but it wasn't as dependent on university size and alumni base, and there wasn't as much conference solidarity. Miami was absolutely dominant (probably the best team ever over a 10-year period), and they were certainly doing everything they could to win. After the '86 Sugar Bowl (in which Tennessee beat Miami 35-7) and up to the '93 Sugar Bowl, the $EC was terrified of Miami. That seems preposterous nowadays.

Also, Nebraska and Oklahoma completely owned the Big 8. There was clearly no parity there, and Colorado was the only program to properly threaten that duopoly before the Big XII came into existence.

Clemson was king in the ACC, and they won a national title in 1981. Clemson!

The biggest upset of the '80s was probably UTEP over BYU in 1985. BYU was coming off a national title (which was undeserved, BTW, and most people acknowledge this), and UTEP was terrible.
(Link: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/70009...tml?pg=all)

College football in the '80s was very fun and memorable, certainly more entertaining than today's product. It was a transitional time, and there was more variety in how teams played. There wasn't as much passing though, and some of today's fans might have been put off by that.

(07-09-2015 04:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 04:01 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Just to note:

I'm not talking about the players themselves, because in those terms it is indeed impossible to compare eras (well, maybe not impossible, but challenging to be sure).

That '85 schedule included three teams that finished the season in the top ten, and perhaps as many as six others that were ranked at some point during the season (and when the rankings were still just the top 20).

Air Force and A&M both finished in the top five in one of the major polls. Miami was #2 going into the bowl games. And Rice was still in the SWC. That's rough sledding.

I wonder, was there more parity back in the day? Was it more common to see lower ranked teams upset the big boys, or did you still not often see the David's knock down the Goliath's? I wonder if all of the money involved has concentrated at the upper echelon of the football world and has created a world where you just don't see as many upsets anymore, or if it's been the opposite.

Maybe I'll find some time this weekend to take a look.

f you go back to the 50's, it seems the SWC had a different champion every year.

'49 - Rice
'50 - UT
'51 -TCU
'52 UT
'53 UT, Rice
54 Ark
55 TCU
56 A$M
57 Rice
58 TCU
59 TCU, Ark.
60 Ark

Up until 1973, schools could give out unlimited scholarships. This could dilute the talent pool for all and concentrate talent at a specific school. This change created greater opportunity for the "others" to be more competitive as more talent was available to be distributed to more schools. The joke in California was that the three best football teams in the state were all at USC.

(07-09-2015 06:41 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Up until 1973, schools could give out unlimited scholarships. This could dilute the talent pool for all and concentrate talent at a specific school. This change created greater opportunity for the "others" to be more competitive as more talent was available to be distributed to more schools. The joke in California was that the three best football teams in the state were all at USC.

Believe it or not the SEC actually had a conference limit back then--40 per school per year. I grew up in SEC country with numerous friends who ended up on scholarship at various schools, so I was very familiar with their rules (one HS teammate was actually involved in a deal where one SEC school was deemed to have exceeded the limit and got punished with fewer scholarships the next year). I remember being astounded when I first got here at the way that Texas was allowed to stockpile talent.

You massdebaters are hilarious. When I was at RICE, we played LSU, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. in addition to our PREMIER SWC schedule. We didn't win many, but we packed HRS, had a GREAT time and regularly attracted MANY RICE students and other Houstonians.

I now have TEXANS season tickets, since I can attend ANY RICE game and sit wherever I want. I also have much higher expectations for the TEXANS [since I sell most of the season tickets for over twice what I pay for them]!! I love attending an afternoon RICE game, since I can sit it the shade in the West Side stands, which I always can.

You just have to adjust your expectations to the practical. RICE is not interested in being a football factory, which would qualify it to be rated higher than 60.......... RICE is NOT Stanford, Miami, Notre Dame, USC or even Vanderbilt or Virginia - speaking of baseball. RICE is not going to attract top quality football talent EVER again. Adjust your expectations and just enjoy the success of the impressive student athletes that we attract, especially in Baseball, Track, Tennis, Soccer and Swimming ...............

Rice could be just like Navy. They have a top 50 program every year and they're ranked in the top 25 every several years. They have a national presence even though they aren't P5. They are successful enough to stay relevant nationally. This is the program Rice should emulate.

(07-09-2015 04:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Well, Bill and Ted did just that and Socrates was still smart. Just saying....

BOGUS!!

(07-09-2015 05:00 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I think that is one of the disconnects. It all depends on what data you use to compare teams. It is difficult to compare "stats" to reach a conclusion on ability. Coaches employed different tactics then versus today. Therefore, the stats become skewed as a means of comparison. I look at observed production versus expected production. Even that is subjective as to what expected really means and how you quantify it. It is always going to be a matter of opinion. However, dismissing ability from another era because we don't know how to quantify it can be an equally flawed endeavor.

It seems to me that 'ranking' is the best way to compare teams across years... not comparing how good 1985 Rice was as compared to 2005 Rice, but comparing how 1985 Rice was vs 1985 everyone else, vs how 2005 Rice was vs 2005 everyone else.

Whether 2015 Rice is better than 1985 Rice or not is really immaterial... but I think 2105 Rice would consider playing teams ranked like those teams were to be quite a challenge. We can certainly argue that the top to bottom was more or less compact then vs now as a result of the p5 split, and I think some are doing that and there is some merit in there... but I don't really see that it changes much. In 1985, Rice didn't have the option of scheduling 8 teams ranked below #75 and only 1-3 in the top 30 in order to qualify for a bowl, get more practice time and attention etc... but by the same token, we shouldn't 'knock' 2015 Rice for making the best of its situation. The situations were entirely different.... and there is (and should be) pride and disappointment to be made and taken in both.

Quote:Honestly, we should to have a round table discussion with regards to coaching philosophy, schematic development and tactical decision making. That would be a lot of fun and we all chime in.

It's hard to do so without risking hurting someone's feelings or coming across wrong... and IMO, that's where these discussions break down, especially in writing as opposed to in person where tone and inflections can matter. Maybe we need a web-ex!!

Quote:Every year I hope Rice will finish at or below my number. That's my reference point.

Mine would get there, but I'll start with double yours plus mine... You were always twice the player I was anyway... that's why you got two shoes.

(07-09-2015 09:20 PM)OWLmanz Wrote:   You massdebaters are hilarious. When I was at RICE, we played LSU, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. in addition to our PREMIER SWC schedule. We didn't win many, but we packed HRS, had a GREAT time and regularly attracted MANY RICE students and other Houstonians.

I now have TEXANS season tickets, since I can attend ANY RICE game and sit wherever I want. I also have much higher expectations for the TEXANS [since I sell most of the season tickets for over twice what I pay for them]!! I love attending an afternoon RICE game, since I can sit it the shade in the West Side stands, which I always can.

You just have to adjust your expectations to the practical. RICE is not interested in being a football factory, which would qualify it to be rated higher than 60.......... RICE is NOT Stanford, Miami, Notre Dame, USC or even Vanderbilt or Virginia - speaking of baseball. RICE is not going to attract top quality football talent EVER again. Adjust your expectations and just enjoy the success of the impressive student athletes that we attract, especially in Baseball, Track, Tennis, Soccer and Swimming ...............

Implicit in your comment here is that the city of Houston, who used to come out to SWC games but don't come out to CUSA games are going to have to as well, and/or that we're going to have to accept putting 15k in the stands for football.... and of course all of the financial losses etc that go with that.

It's a lot to swallow.... not for US (fans), but for all of 'them'.

(07-10-2015 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 04:15 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Well, Bill and Ted did just that and Socrates was still smart. Just saying....

BOGUS!!

(07-09-2015 05:00 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I think that is one of the disconnects. It all depends on what data you use to compare teams. It is difficult to compare "stats" to reach a conclusion on ability. Coaches employed different tactics then versus today. Therefore, the stats become skewed as a means of comparison. I look at observed production versus expected production. Even that is subjective as to what expected really means and how you quantify it. It is always going to be a matter of opinion. However, dismissing ability from another era because we don't know how to quantify it can be an equally flawed endeavor.

It seems to me that 'ranking' is the best way to compare teams across years... not comparing how good 1985 Rice was as compared to 2005 Rice, but comparing how 1985 Rice was vs 1985 everyone else, vs how 2005 Rice was vs 2005 everyone else.

Whether 2015 Rice is better than 1985 Rice or not is really immaterial... but I think 2105 Rice would consider playing teams ranked like those teams were to be quite a challenge. We can certainly argue that the top to bottom was more or less compact then vs now as a result of the p5 split, and I think some are doing that and there is some merit in there... but I don't really see that it changes much. In 1985, Rice didn't have the option of scheduling 8 teams ranked below #75 and only 1-3 in the top 30 in order to qualify for a bowl, get more practice time and attention etc... but by the same token, we shouldn't 'knock' 2015 Rice for making the best of its situation. The situations were entirely different.... and there is (and should be) pride and disappointment to be made and taken in both.

Quote:Honestly, we should to have a round table discussion with regards to coaching philosophy, schematic development and tactical decision making. That would be a lot of fun and we all chime in.

It's hard to do so without risking hurting someone's feelings or coming across wrong... and IMO, that's where these discussions break down, especially in writing as opposed to in person where tone and inflections can matter. Maybe we need a web-ex!!

Quote:Every year I hope Rice will finish at or below my number. That's my reference point.

Mine would get there, but I'll start with double yours plus mine... You were always twice the player I was anyway... that's why you got two shoes.

(07-09-2015 09:20 PM)OWLmanz Wrote:   You massdebaters are hilarious. When I was at RICE, we played LSU, Notre Dame, Michigan, etc. in addition to our PREMIER SWC schedule. We didn't win many, but we packed HRS, had a GREAT time and regularly attracted MANY RICE students and other Houstonians.

I now have TEXANS season tickets, since I can attend ANY RICE game and sit wherever I want. I also have much higher expectations for the TEXANS [since I sell most of the season tickets for over twice what I pay for them]!! I love attending an afternoon RICE game, since I can sit it the shade in the West Side stands, which I always can.

You just have to adjust your expectations to the practical. RICE is not interested in being a football factory, which would qualify it to be rated higher than 60.......... RICE is NOT Stanford, Miami, Notre Dame, USC or even Vanderbilt or Virginia - speaking of baseball. RICE is not going to attract top quality football talent EVER again. Adjust your expectations and just enjoy the success of the impressive student athletes that we attract, especially in Baseball, Track, Tennis, Soccer and Swimming ...............

Implicit in your comment here is that the city of Houston, who used to come out to SWC games but don't come out to CUSA games are going to have to as well, and/or that we're going to have to accept putting 15k in the stands for football.... and of course all of the financial losses etc that go with that.

It's a lot to swallow.... not for US (fans), but for all of 'them'.

I'm happy to see that Rice has not lost it's desire to challenge itself well into the 22nd Century. At that point, speeches may read closer to "We choose to play football on Mars, not because it is easy, but because it is hard."

(07-09-2015 09:20 PM)OWLmanz Wrote:  You just have to adjust your expectations ...

What an inspiring message.

(07-10-2015 03:21 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 09:20 PM)OWLmanz Wrote:  You just have to adjust your expectations ...

What an inspiring message.

+1 No Upper Limit.

(07-10-2015 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... but by the same token, we shouldn't 'knock' 2015 Rice for making the best of its situation. The situations were entirely different.... and there is (and should be) pride and disappointment to be made and taken in both.

I don't think anyone is knocking 2015 (or 2014, 2013... ) Rice. All I am against is the attitude that wow we have won 8 games and we never did that before, therefore how dare you not be totally satisfied. That and the fact that due to past results, we should somehow accept anything that's better than past results.

(07-11-2015 11:17 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ... but by the same token, we shouldn't 'knock' 2015 Rice for making the best of its situation. The situations were entirely different.... and there is (and should be) pride and disappointment to be made and taken in both.

I don't think anyone is knocking 2015 (or 2014, 2013... ) Rice. All I am against is the attitude that wow we have won 8 games and we never did that before, therefore how dare you not be totally satisfied. That and the fact that due to past results, we should somehow accept anything that's better than past results.

To me, it is like climbing stairs. if you get half way up, well done...so far...but there are still steps to climb and higher levels to reach.
I have heard people here before say as long as we can win 7-9 games annually, go to bowls, and occasionally win a conference championship, that should be enough. I disagree. If we must plateau - and everybody must at some point - it should be at the highest plateau. Until we reach the top, keep climbing.

(07-11-2015 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, it is like climbing stairs. if you get half way up, well done...so far...but there are still steps to climb and higher levels to reach.
I have heard people here before say as long as we can win 7-9 games annually, go to bowls, and occasionally win a conference championship, that should be enough. I disagree. If we must plateau - and everybody must at some point - it should be at the highest plateau. Until we reach the top, keep climbing.

This is my issue with Bailiff. I don't know how far up those stairs he can take us, and to this point I really don't see much to indicate that it is any further. It has pretty much all been done by upgrading recruiting, without significant progress in schemes or execution. Maybe the EZF bumps him a little higher on the recruiting ladder, that is clearly the plan. But at some point further progress will depend not just on getting better players, but on getting the players we have to play better. And I'm just not convinced that Bailiff is the guy who can get that done.

But in the longer view, we are at a pretty good place right now. If it's a plateau, it's not a bad one, certainly better than many years before. Maybe it's not all bad to sit here in football while we get basketball going, and probably while we get through the transition when Wayne finally has to hang them up. If we run off a decade of 8-9-10 win football seasons, then yes we plateaued, and no Bailiff probably isn't the guy to take us further. But our chances of attracting someone who can take us further are a whole lot better at that point than they have been in 50 years. So for now, I'm prepared to sit tight and see where this goes.

(07-11-2015 12:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 12:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To me, it is like climbing stairs. if you get half way up, well done...so far...but there are still steps to climb and higher levels to reach.
I have heard people here before say as long as we can win 7-9 games annually, go to bowls, and occasionally win a conference championship, that should be enough. I disagree. If we must plateau - and everybody must at some point - it should be at the highest plateau. Until we reach the top, keep climbing.

This is my issue with Bailiff. I don't know how far up those stairs he can take us, and to this point I really don't see much to indicate that it is any further. It has pretty much all been done by upgrading recruiting, without significant progress in schemes or execution. Maybe the EZF bumps him a little higher on the recruiting ladder, that is clearly the plan. But at some point further progress will depend not just on getting better players, but on getting the players we have to play better. And I'm just not convinced that Bailiff is the guy who can get that done.

But in the longer view, we are at a pretty good place right now. If it's a plateau, it's not a bad one, certainly better than many years before. Maybe it's not all bad to sit here in football while we get basketball going, and probably while we get through the transition when Wayne finally has to hang them up. If we run off a decade of 8-9-10 win football seasons, then yes we plateaued, and no Bailiff probably isn't the guy to take us further. But our chances of attracting someone who can take us further are a whole lot better at that point than they have been in 50 years. So for now, I'm prepared to sit tight and see where this goes.

If the top plateau is the one where we find Ohio State, Oregon, Florida State, et al, then probably Bailiff isn't the guy to get us there. I see bailiff more of (switching analogies here) a booster rocket than a payload. He needs to get us to the level where we are attractive enough to get somebody better. it has taken a bit longer to get close to there than I wanted or expected. But I think we are close, and closing, on that level. continued upward movement is required, and that is one reason another 8 win season this year leaves me with the blahs. I want either more wins or P5 wins or both. Preferably both.