(10-13-2015 05:19 PM)owl95 Wrote:  Ok, I'm going to stir the pot here.

One of the many debates that occur around here is whether people would care nationally if Rice scheduled a creampuff schedule and went undefeated. Well we have a perfect example across town this year.

UH is currently ranked in the top 25(a stated goal around here). They are 5-0 undefeated. Their Sagarin is #47, their schedule rank is #132. In contrast, our own conference leader WKU is 5-1 with a Sagarin of #40 and schedule rank of #83. UH has defeated the likes of Tennessee Tech (2-4) #198, Louisville (2-3) #34, Texas State (1-4)#154, Tulsa (3-2) #95, and SMU (1-4) #122. Basically all bottom feeders, except for Louisville. In fact their schedule is much easier than ours, our schedule rank is #97.

Due to their shiny undefeated record, they are ranked in the top 25 AP, 10 spots higher than our WKU, who have played a significantly tougher schedule and are higher ranked by Sagarin. Outside of Louisville(which I'm not really sure how good they are since they've only won 2 games), I dare say this Rice team could also run the table on that schedule. All things being equal that would also get us a Top 25 ranking and generate for us the same excitement that UH is generating. UH playing our schedule, might have won the UT game, but would have still lost to Baylor, and probably to WKU for a 4-2 record. The question I would pose to The Parliament, which is better?

Clearly being undefeated and ranked is better than a 4-2 record with a ranking likely in the 50-70 range. Is UH really that good? I dunno and they won't be tested until their game with Navy. However, even if they are pretenders feasting on bottom quartile creampuffs, they have already generated excitement for their program, and I would have rather had their schedule so far this year than ours.

I think it is an interesting question. But I will assert three answers

1. without the Louisville win, UH is not ranked or even receiving votes
2. No way this Rice team wins at Louisville
3. To run the table they have to beat 3 teams ranked higher than La Tech--Navy, Memphis and (likely) Temple, whereas I don't believe we will beat La Tech

So if Rice were playing UH's schedule, I think we would go 8-4 at best, and more likely 6-6 with losses to Cincy and Vandy.

(10-13-2015 04:37 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  I'm going to suggest that all DB supporters attend the rest of the home games. You should be out there supporting and clapping with him. I don't see you on the live thread when the game is being played perhaps you're watching Herman, Sumlin, Briles, Patterson, etc. Take action and get out and support your coach. I went last year to the La Tech game and it was an embarrassment. Things I heard in the stands. The frustration from Rice fans and parents that made the drive. DB did not have any supporters that day.

Good point. I'm definitely "on the fence" Bailiff. And I plan to be at 4 out of 6 of the last games we play. Home or away. (Sadly, I won't be at LaTech game because my wife will put up with a lot of s*** from me, but she refuses to move from one house to another without me participating.) For home games, I fly in from almost 500 miles. And, like you, I've sat through some pretty dismal football games. I was there this year at UT, Baylor and WKU. But I've also been to some games that were awesome. Like the win over Marshall for the CUSA Championship. Granted, I wish there could've been a lot more awesome moments.. But I'm never embarrassed. Disappointed maybe. Why not embarrassed?
Because it's a football game!!!! We all deal with some pretty crummy day to day things. For me, Rice Football is a diversion. That I usually enjoy.
Now, if I cut off the wrong leg, then I'd be embarrassed.

(10-13-2015 05:19 PM)owl95 Wrote:  Ok, I'm going to stir the pot here.

One of the many debates that occur around here is whether people would care nationally if Rice scheduled a creampuff schedule and went undefeated. Well we have a perfect example across town this year.

UH is currently ranked in the top 25(a stated goal around here). They are 5-0 undefeated. Their Sagarin is #47, their schedule rank is #132. In contrast, our own conference leader WKU is 5-1 with a Sagarin of #40 and schedule rank of #83. UH has defeated the likes of Tennessee Tech (2-4) #198, Louisville (2-3) #34, Texas State (1-4)#154, Tulsa (3-2) #95, and SMU (1-4) #122. Basically all bottom feeders, except for Louisville. In fact their schedule is much easier than ours, our schedule rank is #97.

Due to their shiny undefeated record, they are ranked in the top 25 AP, 10 spots higher than our WKU, who have played a significantly tougher schedule and are higher ranked by Sagarin. Outside of Louisville(which I'm not really sure how good they are since they've only won 2 games), I dare say this Rice team could also run the table on that schedule. All things being equal that would also get us a Top 25 ranking and generate for us the same excitement that UH is generating. UH playing our schedule, might have won the UT game, but would have still lost to Baylor, and probably to WKU for a 4-2 record. The question I would pose to The Parliament, which is better?

Clearly being undefeated and ranked is better than a 4-2 record with a ranking likely in the 50-70 range. Is UH really that good? I dunno and they won't be tested until their game with Navy. However, even if they are pretenders feasting on bottom quartile creampuffs, they have already generated excitement for their program, and I would have rather had their schedule so far this year than ours.

I don't mind this approach. At least, initially. If we snuck in at #25 it would, indeed, generate a lot of press. Help with recruiting. Appease alums by increasing the chances that DB gets hired away.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain we can afford it right now. I imagine we made good money in Austin and Waco. Plus, with CUSA mates like Marshall, LaTec and WKU thumping us lately, it pretty much lowers our odds of going 12-0.

Great analysis. Are you on vacation? The problem I see is we have not progressed each year. We have a good year about every 5 years. We are not consistent. We cannot survive at this rate with the high cost of athletics. No major 1A program would accept such a record. We need to below 77 this year and < 50 next year. Otherwise we are beating a dead horse.Time will tell but I have run out of patience.

(10-13-2015 01:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 12:39 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 11:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You should probably read my post again, without the idea that I am biased in favor of Bailiff.

I simply provided statistics and interpreted them. I did not try to make any argument about whether these results are "good enough," and neither was I "making excuses" that "Rice has done poorly in the past."

I was simply amused that you chose to cherry pick data about our record against SMU, and I wanted to provide a much more robust and insightful analysis against the group of opponents you had listed. I've posted this many times before, I'm much more about having the facts right so that we can openly debate the merit of Bailiff, than blowing the anti- or pro-Bailiff trumpet.

Your point about us being happy with performing at historical levels has a lot of merit, and if it hadn't been for me taking the time to do the analysis, we wouldn't have the knowledge that Bailiff was, in fact, not really exceeding our historical results. Instead, we would have just had some half-thought out stat about our overall record against SMU immediately following the death penalty, which frankly, isn't worth anything by itself.

I'm not sure your analysis does that. Again, looking at historic records of teams we haven't been playing the last few years doesn't tell us how we're doing in the last few years (see my post about looking at pre-2012 records above). I presume we'd be beating most of them at a higher rate than before.

The team we've been playing consistently is UTEP and I don't know that that tells us much (although if it did, it would be that Bailiff's record is much better against them, but I'm NOT reading anything into that.)

Looking at Sagarin ratings probably is a better gauge, year-to-year, of where we stand. And we were clearly better in 2012-2014 than 2007-2011 (2008 excepted)

Now to have some fun with that.

Using the Sagarin website, I compiled all of the final Sagarin ratings, records, and strength of schedules going back to 1998 (when the data started). Here are the results (in an unformatted table because I haven't done a table before):

Year, Rating, Record, Schedule Rank
1998 56 5-6 57
1999 74 5-6 69
2000 108 3-8 68
2001 82 8-4 106
2002 118 4-7 115
2003 103 5-7 99
2004 107 3-8 71
2005 135 1-10 58
2006 88 7-6 77
2007 152 3-9 108
2008 48 10-3 88
2009 144 2-10 76
2010 127 4-8 90
2011 89 4-8 37
2012 83 7-6 109
2013 69 10-4 98
2014 68 8-5 77
2015 123 3-3 97

Some extra stats:

Excluding 2015, the average end of year rating during this time is 97.5 and schedule is 82.5. Under Bailiff the end of year rating is an avg. 97.5 and for Hatfield it was 97.9. The strength of schedule was 85.4 and 80.4, respectively.

So what can we take away from this?

Bailiff is responsible for 3/5 of the highest end of season ratings (including the highest in 2008). Bailiff is also responsible for 4/5 of the lowest end of season rankings (including the lowest 2 in '07 and '09).

Bailiff played against the hardest schedule we have seen (at 37, 20 points above the next and 44 points over the mean) in 2011 when we went 4-8. Hatfield played against the weakest schedule in 2002 (115). But Hatfield played 4/5 of the hardest schedules we saw.

Also, the average Sagarin rating hasn't really changed much from Hatfield to Bailiff. - Bailiff's is a few decimals higher than Hatfield. And, on average, the strength of schedule hasn't changed much (which is surprising given that Hatfield played 4/5 hardest schedules). The median strength of schedule gives a 19 pt advantage to Hatfield's teams, though.

And where does the Toad stand? About in the middle. His final year ranking was 88, which is above the historical average of this period, but near the middle of the rankings, and his strength of schedule was on par with 2009 and 2014.

Hopefully y'all found this interesting. Lunch break is over now.

(10-13-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I don't mind this approach. At least, initially. If we snuck in at #25 it would, indeed, generate a lot of press. Help with recruiting. Appease alums by increasing the chances that DB gets hired away.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain we can afford it right now. I imagine we made good money in Austin and Waco. Plus, with CUSA mates like Marshall, LaTec and WKU thumping us lately, it pretty much lowers our odds of going 12-0.

Not to mention ODU.

If we were consistently at a level to run the table in C-USA, then I feel the 12-0 vs non-12-0 discussion has merit; this includes who we should schedule. As we are not there yet, this is simply a back and forth discussion on hypotheticals.

Plus, based on my post above (about Marshall) undefeated seasons get you to the fringes if you beat nobody noteworthy and then you are forgotten. I am curious to see if anyone disagrees/counters that assessment (honest curiosity, no snark)

You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

(10-13-2015 09:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 07:29 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I don't mind this approach. At least, initially. If we snuck in at #25 it would, indeed, generate a lot of press. Help with recruiting. Appease alums by increasing the chances that DB gets hired away.
Unfortunately, I'm not certain we can afford it right now. I imagine we made good money in Austin and Waco. Plus, with CUSA mates like Marshall, LaTec and WKU thumping us lately, it pretty much lowers our odds of going 12-0.

Not to mention ODU.

If we were consistently at a level to run the table in C-USA, then I feel the 12-0 vs non-12-0 discussion has merit; this includes who we should schedule. As we are not there yet, this is simply a back and forth discussion on hypotheticals.

Plus, based on my post above (about Marshall) undefeated seasons get you to the fringes if you beat nobody noteworthy and then you are forgotten. I am curious to see if anyone disagrees/counters that assessment (honest curiosity, no snark)

I think things would have been very different for Marshall if they hadn't lost to WKU at the end of the season. 13-0 Marshall heading into bowl season is way different than 12-1 losing to WKU(8-5). While Boise may still have gotten the Access Bowl anyways, Marshall is definitely in the discussion(and Rice would have gotten an extra $500K for the football program).

There is a huge difference between being perfect and not quite, and as a Pats fan I know you know this. If the Pats hadn't lost that Super Bowl, they would hands down be considered the greatest team in the history of the NFL and there could be little debate on the matter. Instead, 18-1 is only a future trivia question.

(10-13-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

Bailiff is 0-4 against the combo of Vanderbilt/Northwestern with an average margin of loss of 19 points. Stanford will beat us by a bigger margin over the next two years. But I'm sure it's only because they can admit athletes that we can't.

(10-13-2015 04:06 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 03:20 PM)potato124 Wrote:  pre-Bailiff we didn't go to bowl games. Now we do. That is his measure of success given our academic restrictions on players.

Fact--DB has gone to more bowl games in the last 3 years than any Rice coach in living memory did over a 3 year span

Conclusion--DB is successful.


Fact--my son graduated Rice with a higher GPA than I did

Conclusion--My son's academic achievement at Rice was higher than mine was



I believe it is incomplete analysis to look at DB's record of bowl attendance without also taking note of how the bar has been lowered for bowl participation. And I think a 3.5 at Rice in 1982 is at least as strong of achievement as a 3.8 today.

While this lowering bar for bowl participation may be true, that fact is not obvious to the average fan. It will take a few years of this type of outcome to settle in before "better" bowls are expected.

Also, I noticed in Wiki that DB has the highest winning percentage of any rice coach since Neely (except for the considerate Todd Graham). That would match our bowl game participation too.

DB is winning more, and going to more bowls. Yes the bars for both may be lower, but that fact is lost to the average fan.

(10-13-2015 09:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus, based on my post above (about Marshall) undefeated seasons get you to the fringes if you beat nobody noteworthy and then you are forgotten. I am curious to see if anyone disagrees/counters that assessment (honest curiosity, no snark)

I think it can work. Tulane 1998 is an interesting example. They went undefeated playing no schools from major conferences. Beat a bunch of bad teams and a few decent teams but nobody with less than 5 losses (for the season). They got grief for their poor schedule strength but still climbed up the rankings, finishing 7th. They were never going to be considered for the NC, but in the current scheme they certainly would have gained an access bowl spot. The problem, of course, is that it was just that one year. Moderate to poor seasons followed and they gained almost nothing from that flash in the pan.

And of course Boise stands out. In the early years of their run (starting 1999), they were beating the pants off most of their WAC conference mates (notable exception Rice in 2001 - beat you to it Rick!) but losing to major conference teams (usually close losses but there were definitely some blowouts). Their early years of success were mostly dismissed for their SOS. But they kept it up, and eventually they got to the point where they were strong enough to start knocking off some of those major conference/P5 teams.

So the lesson, I think, is that a G5 team CAN gain traction with a weak(ish) schedule. But it's not worth much unless they can sustain success (0-2 losses most years, over a span of probably 3+ years).

On the other hand, there's a pretty good counter example out there: NIU. They're very close to what I describe above since 2010 and while they probably are well respected by knowledgeable fans/media, I don't know if they are registering much beyond that. Not enough "signature wins", maybe?

(10-13-2015 11:29 PM)potato124 Wrote:  DB is winning more, and going to more bowls. Yes the bars for both may be lower, but that fact is lost to the average fan.

Who is this "average fan"? Our attendance is still paltry as it has been for the last decade.

We keep talking about how these wins are important, however, I am thoroughly unclear as to who these people are. We have a handful of young alums - the vast majority of our fans graduated 20-30 years ago.

(10-13-2015 11:29 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus, based on my post above (about Marshall) undefeated seasons get you to the fringes if you beat nobody noteworthy and then you are forgotten. I am curious to see if anyone disagrees/counters that assessment (honest curiosity, no snark)

I think it can work. Tulane 1998 is an interesting example. They went undefeated playing no schools from major conferences. Beat a bunch of bad teams and a few decent teams but nobody with less than 5 losses (for the season). They got grief for their poor schedule strength but still climbed up the rankings, finishing 7th. They were never going to be considered for the NC, but in the current scheme they certainly would have gained an access bowl spot. The problem, of course, is that it was just that one year. Moderate to poor seasons followed and they gained almost nothing from that flash in the pan.

And of course Boise stands out. In the early years of their run (starting 1999), they were beating the pants off most of their WAC conference mates (notable exception Rice in 2001 - beat you to it Rick!) but losing to major conference teams (usually close losses but there were definitely some blowouts). Their early years of success were mostly dismissed for their SOS. But they kept it up, and eventually they got to the point where they were strong enough to start knocking off some of those major conference/P5 teams.

So the lesson, I think, is that a G5 team CAN gain traction with a weak(ish) schedule. But it's not worth much unless they can sustain success (0-2 losses most years, over a span of probably 3+ years).

On the other hand, there's a pretty good counter example out there: NIU. They're very close to what I describe above since 2010 and while they probably are well respected by knowledgeable fans/media, I don't know if they are registering much beyond that. Not enough "signature wins", maybe?

Interesting post.

I think the landscape changed heavily between NIU in 2010 and Tulane in 1998. With the realignment in the last 5 years, the chasm between the haves and have nots has widened. As a result, NIU, Marshall etc. are likely more representative of the upper ceiling of our abilities by just beating C-USA and other G5 schools.

Even with TCU and Boise, their big announcement on the big stage was due to them having some big impressive wins against notable P5 programs. However, I agree, in order to get there, they had to win their conferences and beat up on the G5 consistently; that is the only way you are good enough to beat a big P5 school.

(10-13-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

per Ham, Top 25 when we scheduled them, not played them.

pre-2012 losses I believe, correct?

(10-13-2015 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I find the overall steady decline in takeaways and penalties from 2011 very concerning. There has to be some reason why those have changed since then - and the only thing I can think of is that Thurmond took over our defense then. Which comes as a shock, since I've felt like our defense has looked much better overall since we lost Driesbach. But the eyes can be deceiving I guess.

The good thing about the giveaway number this year is that it seems to be an outlier, and hopefully we will regress to the mean by the end of the season, or at least next year.

We probably will. I read a study last year on some website that I can't remember now wherein the author was attempting to test the theory that coaching has some influence on a team's turnover margin. He took the turnover stats for Division I FBS teams for the first half of the season and compared them to these stats for the second half of the season. His hypothesis was that, if coaching were having some systematic effect on turnovers, the trends established in the first half of the season would persist into the second half (i.e., teams with lots of turnovers would continue to turn over the ball a lot, and the converse would be true for teams with fewer turnovers). That turned out not to be the case. Instead, teams tended to regress to the mean over the second half of the season, whether they had many or few turnovers in the first half. So it's likely that Rice will do better in the turnover category as the season progresses. Indeed, we saw that in the FAU game, where Rice had only one turnover after having five the previous game, and the other Owls, who had five turnovers in each of their previous three (!) games, had none at all.

(10-13-2015 11:29 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  On the other hand, there's a pretty good counter example out there: NIU. They're very close to what I describe above since 2010 and while they probably are well respected by knowledgeable fans/media, I don't know if they are registering much beyond that. Not enough "signature wins", maybe?

Here are some facts about Northern Illinois

1. They have won 11 or more for 5 (edit) straight years, starting in 2010
2. Like us, they are 3-3 this year, but lost to Ohio State on road by 7
3. Over that time, they are 4-9 against P5 teams
4. to the good, only one of those 9 losses was a blowout, a 38 point loss at Arkansas
5. to the bad, no wins against ranked opponents and they don't sell out at home, where capacity is only 24, 000

the market seems to have figured them out a bit. Jerry Kill went 23-16 and got hired by Minnesota. Dave Doeren went 23-4 in two years and got hired by NC State.

Rod Carey went 23-5 in first two years, 3-0 against Big Ten, and is still there.

(10-14-2015 01:46 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

per Ham, Top 25 when we scheduled them, not played them.

pre-2012 losses I believe, correct?

They were not top 25 when they were scheduled, that was with Franklin as coach, much later.

So, pre-2012 losses don't count?

(10-14-2015 01:46 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

per Ham, Top 25 when we scheduled them, not played them.

pre-2012 losses I believe, correct?

They were not top 25 (or even sniffed a winning season) when they were scheduled, that was with Franklin as coach, much later.

So, pre-2012 losses don't count?

(10-14-2015 07:02 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 01:46 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You have to remember the audiences. People who 'know' football aren't really that impressed by UH and won't be until they beat someone of note.... but undefeated is undefeated. UH can easily go from 25 to 55 with one loss.... see Marshall recently. Alabama on the other hand has a loss and is still #1, right?

It's simply a whole lot easier to pimp 5-0, especially with a new and relatively high profile coach than it is 4-1 or 3-2 with (and I mean this with respect) a far more subdued public profile, unless that 1 or 2 is pretty well known and accepted to be a top talent, like say Baylor.

A loss to WKU hurts because even if WKU is good, MOST people don't know about them.... and they aren't top 25 (now) so that means WE aren't top 25. A loss to #50 Texas doesn't hurt as much in the eyes of most people as a loss to #39 WKU... especially when UT goes and beats #10 OU.

The problem with beating up on the sisters of charity is that you now become a tough bowl match-up... and if you get a mediocre p5 (especially one getting their stud QB back as we did vs Miss St) in the bowl and they hammer you, you fall precipitously.

Let's say we played our schedule but WKU was 50... and went 12-1, losing to top 5 Baylor and UH played their schedule and went 13-0 with their best win over #35 Louisville.

Who is better?

Well, Houston is somewhat better than #35 and we're somewhat worse than #5. Does UH get 'style' points for being undefeated? I doubt it because ranking us higher supports playoff team Baylor (and historical favorite and large alumni base Texas)

Of course this is all academic with the REAL problem being that we scheduled Vandy when they were in the top 25 and now they're closer to 70.

You gotta play what comes.

Did you mean Vandy? Bailiff lost to them when they were 2-10 and 7-6. Not top 25.

per Ham, Top 25 when we scheduled them, not played them.

pre-2012 losses I believe, correct?

They were not top 25 (or even sniffed a winning season) when they were scheduled, that was with Franklin as coach, much later.

So, pre-2012 losses don't count?

They count. But for an analogy, if you have a pitcher who for 3 years at a 67% or better clip, you wouldn't coach him by constantly reminding him that he was 3-12 five years ago.

I keep getting the feeling that some of the anti-Bailiff posters are still trying to fire him for 2007-2011.

The trajectory then, had it been sustained, would have justified that.

Your anger should be directed at Greenspan then, not the coach who has been 27-13 in the last 40 games.

(10-14-2015 07:28 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Your anger should be directed at Greenspan then, not the coach who has been 27-13 in the last 40 games.

Nobody is angry, nobody has a vendetta against Bailiff.

This whole argument is tiresome. its going nowhere. If you truly believe that Rice is not as irrelevant as we were 10 years ago (probably more irrelevant now), then there isn't much else to be said. This discussion about wins is immaterial and academic only - Rice Alums don't care, Houston doesn't care, The country doesn't care.