(07-28-2015 09:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:09 PM)WIowl Wrote:  GaTech has scheduled Tulane in several home-and-home series recently, maybe Rice can squeeze in there.

GT has far more history with Tulane than with Rice. They were both in the SEC together, and both left about the same time.

The Georgia Tech and Tulane football teams first met 98 years ago -- when they were the John-Heisman-coached Golden Tornado and the Greenbacks, respectively. They have been in four different conferences together. In football, GT has more wins over Tulane than all the Greenies' foes except for LSU & Ole Miss.

(07-28-2015 10:17 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Picking between possible 12-2 seasons is not easy.
Not saying I prefer one 12-2 season over another, but, for the ones who would rather see UT and Baylor wins among the 12, which games would you prefer the 2 in?
If we win those early two, my expectations for the season rise, and any subsequent loss will doubly be a disappointment. If we win at UT, and again at BU, ANY subsequent loss will be terrible.
so within the constraints of exactly 12 wins and exactly two losses, why are losses to, say, LTU and WKU better than losses to UT and BU? Or losses to Marshall in the CC game and TCU in the HOD bowl, following a 12-0 regular season? Whatever gains we made in perception in September would be lost in December.

All 12-2 seasons are 12-2 seasons. That means they are better than 11-3 seasons and worse than 13-1 seasons. The only possible exception would be that an 11-3 season where the losses were out of conference so that we still won the conference championship might arguably be better than a 12-2 where we did not win the conference championship. Among the hypotheticals you list, the first two would both mean that we got to the CC game (since we played 14) and won it and our bowl, whereas the third means we didn't win the conference or our bowl, so I'd rate the third one worst, and probably the one with losses to TU and BU ahead of the one with two conference losses (since that would truly place our conference championship in jeopardy, making 11-2 probably more likely than 12-2). One note, last year after losing to ND and aTm, there were still pundits who had us in the running for the G5 BCS slot (whatever they call it, I think you know what I mean) if we had run the table. I would think the same would happen if we lost to TU and BU and then we ran the table in 2015. Of course, the problem with that for last year was that an unrun table didn't get it done. Regardless of the TU and BU outcomes, let's not leave the rest of the table unrun this year.

You are what your record says you are. -- Bill Parcells

Yeah, but we were discussing 12-2 seasons in particular. Not possible 11-3 or 14-1 or 10-3. Just 12-2. Exactly 14 games, with exactly 12 wins and exactly 2 losses. if they are all the same, how can one be the "worst", as you say.

I don't see any of us being happy with a 12-2 season that includes losses to both UT and BU, even though that would mean an eleven game winning streak to end the season, another conference champion, and a win in the HOD bowl. But we would have missed our two big opportunities at a signature win. But also I don't see any of us being happy with a 12-2 season in which we win both of those game but lose two later,, probably to teams we should have beaten, whether or not those are the last two or two of the conference games, or one of each.

The only 12-2 mix I see that might bring a smidgen of satisfaction for a portion of the Rice fans might be beating UT, losing to BU and the CC or bowl.

In a 12-2 season, designating a game as a W means another must be designated as a L. It is zero-sum if we are to finish exactly 12 and 2. If I am to pick two to lose, out of 12 regular season games, a CC, and a bowl, I pick BU for one. I can't decide on the other. Anybody have two that make the ideal loss list in a 12-2 season? Anybody picking LTU and the bowl, or what?

I disagree with the bold.... depending on how good those two teams end up being. If they both end up in the top 10, then I suspect we're beating someone in the HOD bowl (actually, we're probably winning the access bowl, but that is beside the point) who is 'of note' themselves and THAT would be our signature win. If Baylor is good and UT spotty, we're probably still playing a team of SOME note that is likely a signature win in a bowl game. If both Baylor and UT end up being mediocre for p5's... i.e. somewhere between 25 and 45 and we lose 'bad', we're likely playing another g5 team or a 6-6, barely qualifying p5.

The 'ideal' loss list means losing 'close' to the two best teams on your schedule. In CUSA, that is LIKELY, but not guaranteed to be OOC. I'd take losing to ultimate N.C. Baylor in the regular season and then losing to #8 whomever in a good game in the access bowl as my 'preferred' two losses.... meaning we ran CUSA and beat Texas... We would certainly be ranked in the top 20, and perhaps #10.

How dare you dispute anything I say!!! banish him!!!

Just kidding. But maybe I need to clarify my remarks a bit.

I am sure some of us will be thrilled with 12-2. Maybe most of us. probably I will, depending on the 2 and how we got there. But if it doesn't include that signature win we have been talking about, a lot of us will just consider it a slightly better version of the last 3 or so years. Not beating UT and/or BU will leave a somewhat bitter taste in some mouths. JMHO.

The HOD bowl is against a middle of the pack Big12. I think last year it was a 6-6 team. The Access Bowl is unlikely for a two loss team not named Boise State. So I don't see either of those as a third shot at a sig-win.

I'm OK with trying various combinations of 12-2, and yours seems particularly good. Heck, like somebody said, let's get to 12-2 before we fuss about it.

(07-28-2015 10:44 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 10:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.

While that (the last statement in bold above) may very well be true, it will still do nothing to raise our profile nationally.

(07-28-2015 10:44 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.

ODU just started FBS and Southern Miss went 3-9 last year, 1-11 the year before and a spectacular 0-12 the year before. So somehow, we are supposed to accept that teams like this might do so much right and improve that they can jump us? This is excuse making at its finest.

Also, do you think this reasoning would be accepted anywhere else? Sorry Rice alums, we fell to 30 in USNWR - you shouldn't be too upset " it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well" . How do you think that would go over?

If other schools get better, they get better. That's a good thing.

Separate issue from Rice not getting better.

(07-28-2015 10:44 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 10:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.

I see nothing wrong with expecting Rice to get better faster than other programs in CUSA, especially with one of the longest tenured coaches in the conference. If CUSA is getting better, that's great. Rice needs to get better faster. There is no reason Rice shouldn't dominate the CUSA or least compete for the title every year.

If we are here to just exist while others catch up and pass us by, then give everybody a trophy, a drink box and let's go home.

And I still think a Rice board should be Rice-centric. For sure no other forum will be.

(07-28-2015 12:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I see nothing wrong with expecting Rice to get better faster than other programs in CUSA, especially with one of the longest tenured coaches in the conference. If CUSA is getting better, that's great. Rice needs to get better faster. There is no reason Rice shouldn't dominate the CUSA or least compete for the title every year.

If we are here to just exist while others catch up and pass us by, then give everybody a trophy, a drink box and let's go home.

And I still think a Rice board should be Rice-centric. For sure no other forum will be.

Yes, yes and yes.

(07-28-2015 12:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 10:44 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 10:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.

I see nothing wrong with expecting Rice to get better faster than other programs in CUSA, especially with one of the longest tenured coaches in the conference. If CUSA is getting better, that's great. Rice needs to get better faster. There is no reason Rice shouldn't dominate the CUSA or least compete for the title every year.

If we are here to just exist while others catch up and pass us by, then give everybody a trophy, a drink box and let's go home.

And I still think a Rice board should be Rice-centric. For sure no other forum will be.

Rice already does compete for the title every year. We missed the championship game by one loss last season. And the Rice board does need to be Rice-centric, but at the same time, outside variables must be taken into consideration. It's only fair and even-handed to do so.

(07-28-2015 12:08 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 10:44 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.

ODU just started FBS and Southern Miss went 3-9 last year, 1-11 the year before and a spectacular 0-12 the year before. So somehow, we are supposed to accept that teams like this might do so much right and improve that they can jump us? This is excuse making at its finest.

Also, do you think this reasoning would be accepted anywhere else? Sorry Rice alums, we fell to 30 in USNWR - you shouldn't be too upset " it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well" . How do you think that would go over?

It's obvious that Old Dominion was asked to join CUSA for it's potential in athletics as well as for it's market. It should be no surprise if they their football program improves rapidly. Southern Mississippi is a public school with a rich football history, and again, it doesn't surprise me at all that they're about to turn the corner.

As far as USNWR rankings are concerned, Rice will never have to worry about falling too far, if at all. It's an exceptional institution of higher learning with strict standards, but those strict standards are the very thing that makes it so much harder for Rice to compete in football with the others. We can't bring in buses full of juco players like Southern Miss and Louisiana Tech to immediately fill holes. This is what makes it so satisfying for me that we still compete against and defeat such universities on the field of play. We do it, but we do it with a lot more integrity than anyone else. We don't cut corners.

(07-27-2015 11:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

??? Yeah, because the one CUSA championship we won brought us so much national attention and changed the perception of the program. NOT.

Maybe not national attention, but the general perception of Rice football around the state is better now than it's been in quite some time.

(07-28-2015 10:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

Well clarified - LOL. Or that our not moving upward in the last conference reshuffle was because our AD wasn't trying to get us included or didn't do enough . . . not that our last AD was doing a good job, just that those decisions were independent to what our AD could or could not, did or did not, accomplish.