(10-12-2015 03:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

No one does. No one cares how young the team is or the resources.

When you go see a movie, do you sit and think about whats the filming budget is before recommending it to anyone else?

Yeah, I'm not quite sure why those facts would matter when ranking teams based on their performance. This is strictly a quantitative approach and it should ignore those qualitative aspects of a team's performance. People can look to those facts when trying to discuss whether their team is/isn't performing to expectations, but not when trying to rank all of the Division 1 football teams - an act which has value.

But regarding the movie comment, you're right that no one thinks about the budget when recommending the film, unless you say something like, "That film had a great story, but man, they really skimped on CG, set design, costume, etc. and that really detracted from the overall quality of the film." So obviously there are times when a film's budget does come into play. I think it would be more appropriate to say that small studios still win Oscars if you want to go with a film analogy to Rice football. No one really thinks of what studio produced an Oscar winner and what resources they had, because hey, it won an Oscar.

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

Are you serious? Why should it? What does that EVER have to do with rankings?

(10-12-2015 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

Are you serious? Why should it? What does that EVER have to do with rankings?

It would be a fun exercise to try and create a ranking system that did take these aspects into consideration given the relatively wide range of resources that each school has at its disposal. For example, did anyone know that UVA, a school not exactly known for football, has an indoor practice facility? It would be interesting to see which schools were punching well above their weight and vice versa.

But those rankings would be useful for casual conversations at best - there is absolutely zero value in them with regards to determining the best team in the nation.

(10-12-2015 02:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 10:33 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, but if anyone thinks Bailiff will raise havoc in trying to get the team to play with greater urgency and focus, you have simply not been paying attention the last 9 years. And that's precisely why we need a new coach if we're ever going to get off this plateau.

I don't know what he does in private, and I strongly suspect that you don't either. I would like to see how he behaves in practices, which is one reason why I've asked any of those who are able to attend for information about how they go. I agree that his public persona is a lot less fiery than some coaches, but I've known some pretty good coaches whose public face was pretty calm, but who were plenty fiery in private. I don't think it is absolutely essential to raise havoc as long as you have other ways of motivation, and I'm not of the opinion that raising havoc is the best way to proceed with today's athletes.

I think motivation and focus are a lot easier to achieve when you have a plan and a persona that everybody knows and understands. That has to come from the top, and I don't know whether we have that or not. I see indications that Bailiff sets the tone at the top in several areas--behaviour and academics come to mind--but I'm not sure he does in how to win football games.

I have attended many practices and scrimmages. Honestly he's not too involved. He walks around and talks to folks. You get the sense he oversees the process but not involved in the details. He claps quite a bit and shakes hands.

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

(10-12-2015 02:46 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  Then why did we play it?? I have agreed with 90% of what you have posted since you came on this board- Welcome BTW!- but this attitude that any game is unwinnable bothers me. It's fine for arm-chair quarterbacks, which we have all become. We can't do anything to impact the game- can only watch it. I hope you didn't have that attitude when you were playing though.

We played it because apparently that is how you turn a program around. Get pounded by Top 10 teams until you finally sneak one out for a signature win and fans come pouring into HRS by the tens of thousands! *Insert sarcasm button here*

We played it for money and because they agreed to come to HRS in the future (so the green and yellow can pour in by the thousands). I say that game was never winnable now, as the arm-chair holder (see what I did there?). As a player, I was, probably to a fault, eternally optimistic about whoever we played. I was always convinced that no matter who or where we played, we had a chance to win. In 2010, I though Baylor's D was so bad we had a chance. In 2011 I thought Texas was so average at QB, we had a chance. In 2012, I thought UCLA coming to HRS with a true frosh QB gave us a chance. In 2013, I thought no Johnny for a half gave us a chance.

I was right, we had a chance in all of those games but we didn't execute or finish.

Right now Baylor, in my opinion, is the best team in America. We dont have the talent/depth/whatever you want to insert there to beat the best team in America, not even on our best day. And neither does Boise, or WKU, or Marshall, or Navy.

(10-12-2015 04:00 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

To further this analogy, I also expect my employer to provide me sufficient equipment to get the job done correctly and safely. So if they want to be cheap and not provide me competent subcontractors because they are too expensive, or don't want to provide me with the proper tools because they're too expensive, then they can't complain when I do the best with what I've got and it isn't 100%.

And if they do want to complain and ride my a** because they are being too short sighted, I can take my very talented and capable skills to an employer who will actually provide me with the equipment and subs I need to get the job done correctly and safely.

So while I get your point, there is a very obvious otherside of the coin where you have to look at the tools being provided to the employee. If my company needs me to drill a monitoring well to X ft, they better not hire a sub who only has the equipment to install a well to Y ft and then get mad at me when they don't hit X ft.

(10-12-2015 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:00 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

To further this analogy, I also expect my employer to provide me sufficient equipment to get the job done correctly and safely. So if they want to be cheap and not provide me competent subcontractors because they are too expensive, or don't want to provide me with the proper tools because they're too expensive, then they can't complain when I do the best with what I've got and it isn't 100%.

And if they do want to complain and ride my a** because they are being too short sighted, I can take my very talented and capable skills to an employer who will actually provide me with the equipment and subs I need to get the job done correctly and safely.

So while I get your point, there is a very obvious otherside of the coin where you have to look at the tools being provided to the employee. If my company needs me to drill a monitoring well to X ft, they better not hire a sub who only has the equipment to install a well to Y ft and then get mad at me when they don't hit X ft.

Stop it already Bailiff is getting paid more than the WKU coach, and has better facilities. Stop making excuses for his coaching shortcomings.

(10-12-2015 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To further this analogy, I also expect my employer to provide me sufficient equipment to get the job done correctly and safely. So if they want to be cheap and not provide me competent subcontractors because they are too expensive, or don't want to provide me with the proper tools because they're too expensive, then they can't complain when I do the best with what I've got and it isn't 100%.

And if they do want to complain and ride my a** because they are being too short sighted, I can take my very talented and capable skills to an employer who will actually provide me with the equipment and subs I need to get the job done correctly and safely.

So while I get your point, there is a very obvious otherside of the coin where you have to look at the tools being provided to the employee. If my company needs me to drill a monitoring well to X ft, they better not hire a sub who only has the equipment to install a well to Y ft and then get mad at me when they don't hit X ft.

I agree with the analogy, RiceLad, except our biggest shortcoming hasn't been equipment or resources. Sure, an EZF, and spiffy locker rooms would be great, but they aren't going to fix the problem - that we routinely field an unprepared team (by all appearances) and make the same errors on defense and ST for 9 years.

Maybe its just me, but 780 grand should be more than sufficient to have a team that looks well prepared.

Now, if we want to talk about beating Baylor, then your analogy makes perfect sense. We do not have the tools presently.

(10-12-2015 04:12 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:00 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

To further this analogy, I also expect my employer to provide me sufficient equipment to get the job done correctly and safely. So if they want to be cheap and not provide me competent subcontractors because they are too expensive, or don't want to provide me with the proper tools because they're too expensive, then they can't complain when I do the best with what I've got and it isn't 100%.

And if they do want to complain and ride my a** because they are being too short sighted, I can take my very talented and capable skills to an employer who will actually provide me with the equipment and subs I need to get the job done correctly and safely.

So while I get your point, there is a very obvious otherside of the coin where you have to look at the tools being provided to the employee. If my company needs me to drill a monitoring well to X ft, they better not hire a sub who only has the equipment to install a well to Y ft and then get mad at me when they don't hit X ft.

Stop it already Bailiff is getting paid more than the WKU coach, and has better facilities. Stop making excuses for his coaching shortcomings.

I'm just showing how bad of an analogy that was, cus it was awful.

But do you even know anything about WKU's facilities? Or do you just assume they must be bad because they are WKU? They spent almost $40 million renovating their football facilities in '08.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yItknyO3a0

http://www.wkusports.com/facilities/wky-facilities.html

http://www.bgdailynews.com/special_secti...963f4.html

Please tell me our facilities are better after looking into this. PLEASE.

(10-12-2015 04:00 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

Leebron and Karlgaard disagree with you.

(10-12-2015 04:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To further this analogy, I also expect my employer to provide me sufficient equipment to get the job done correctly and safely. So if they want to be cheap and not provide me competent subcontractors because they are too expensive, or don't want to provide me with the proper tools because they're too expensive, then they can't complain when I do the best with what I've got and it isn't 100%.

And if they do want to complain and ride my a** because they are being too short sighted, I can take my very talented and capable skills to an employer who will actually provide me with the equipment and subs I need to get the job done correctly and safely.

So while I get your point, there is a very obvious otherside of the coin where you have to look at the tools being provided to the employee. If my company needs me to drill a monitoring well to X ft, they better not hire a sub who only has the equipment to install a well to Y ft and then get mad at me when they don't hit X ft.

I agree with the analogy, RiceLad, except our biggest shortcoming hasn't been equipment or resources. Sure, an EZF, and spiffy locker rooms would be great, but they aren't going to fix the problem - that we routinely field an unprepared team (by all appearances) and make the same errors on defense and ST for 9 years.

Maybe its just me, but 780 grand should be more than sufficient to have a team that looks well prepared.

Now, if we want to talk about beating Baylor, then your analogy makes perfect sense. We do not have the tools presently.

You'll get no retorts from me about your post that the biggest issues we have had have not been directly related to facilities. We have enough tools to at least look prepared and ready to play football, which hasn't always been the case with Bailiff.

But people still need to recognize that Bailiff has not been working with a full deck while coaching at Rice. Tom Herman even admitted that he was embarrassed to show recruits around Rice unless he had advanced warning and could hide all of the massive blemishes. Perhaps former players can give more insight into the state of the facilities and how it affects recruiting players/preparing for games.

(10-12-2015 04:00 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

I wish you were my professor when I was in school. You're a kind man.

Do you know that if we're an AD you would have been fired by most decent football programs.

I'm amazed at the complacency and willingness to settle for average. Listen we are playing crappy. Nothing personal but is a fact. Turn on the news if you live in Houston, no one cares. UH has taken over this town. We are simply irrelevant but you can sit there and convince yourself that 8-4, 7-5 are great records for Rice football. You are in the minority. Look at the attendance, no one comes out to the games. We are simply not good and hopefully we can agree that it starts at the top. That means Bailiff. If this was something new, understandable but is nine years. 9 not 1. Tell your employer that you will deliver on 75 percent of your goals and let's see how long you hang around. Disappointing to say the least but will respect your position Professor.

If you check my scale those 8-4, 7-5 records are in the C category (with a B- for a 5-1 finish, barely missing a CUSA Champ bid, and a bowl win). I was never allowed to bring home B- or C grades and I will never accept them from my children. So, please, enlighten me on where I called 8-4, 7-5 a "great record"?

You're chastising the same person that graduated from Rice with a 3.4978 and will forever hold it against his freshman year Art History teacher for giving a final that was 40% of his grade. I will be bitter about those .0122 points until the day I die.
^Sorry, had to vent for a second. Felt good.

There are 8 non-P5 schools currently in the Top 50 of Sagarin--Houston, Temple, Memphis, Boise, Navy, BYU, Western Kentucky, and Toledo. While we can quibble about computer ratings, I believe it is indisputable that we would be at least a 17 point underdog to each of those schools.

Some may have better facilities and some (but not all) pay coaches more.

It is interesting (edit--and not surprising) that different people can look at the same set of facts and reach different conclusions.

PS:
Baylor is ranked 2 in Sagarin. Baylor is the probably the highest ranked Sagarin team we have played in the DB era (someone needs to fact check that, but I think it is correct)

"Stop it already Bailiff is getting paid more than the WKU coach, and has better facilities."

The correlation is never going to be perfect, but it is a very good one. With 128 data points (d-1 teams), you are going to find coaches paid less than Bailiff who are doing a better job this season, and coaches who are getting paid more than Bailiff gets, where Bailiff is doing the better job, this season. The same goes with facilities. Finding a team who beat us that has a coach who is paid less this year than Bailiff is paid doesn't prove anything of significance.

(10-12-2015 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

Are you serious? Why should it? What does that EVER have to do with rankings?

Rankings are just rankings. It's a measure of in-season performance. The intangibles are what affects performance. Someone could look at rankings and come to the conclusion that our team sucks, but anyone here, who knows Rice football, should be more responsible than that. Sangarin is not a reflection of where a program is headed and why. I don't want to hear anything about Sagarin. Every poster here should have an appreciation for the struggles and unique challenges at Rice. Those of us who do have that appreciation can see that the program is doing very, very well, and we don't give a damn about what Sagarin says.

(10-12-2015 04:45 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

Are you serious? Why should it? What does that EVER have to do with rankings?

Rankings are just rankings. It's a measure of in-season performance. The intangibles are what affects performance. Someone could look at rankings and come to the conclusion that our team sucks, but anyone here, who knows Rice football, should be more responsible than that. Sangarin is not a reflection of where a program is headed and why. I don't want to hear anything about Sagarin. Every poster here should have an appreciation for the struggles and unique challenges at Rice. Those of us who do have that appreciation can see that the program is doing very, very well, and we don't give a damn about what Sagarin says.

You're special. And wrong, as usual.

I think I've explain why you're wrong way too many times. Not worth the effort. Attitudes like this are one of the many reasons why we have no fans.

(10-12-2015 02:46 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 02:27 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  Serious question: Who/What is Sagarin and why does everyone in this thread reference them as though it is the holy grail of rankings?

My opinion of what a mid-season grading scale should look like:

A+ = 5-1 with a loss to Baylor (that win was NEVER going to happen)
A = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and WKU
A- = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and UT
B+ = 4-2 with losses to Baylor and someone other than UT/WKU
B = 3-3 with very respectable losses to at least 2 out of Baylor, UT, WKU
B- = 3-3 with respectable losses to Baylor & UT, a win over WKU and a let down somewhere else
C+ = 3-3 with respectable play in 1 loss, 2 blowouts, and 3 wins
C = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 wins
C- = 3-3 with 3 blowouts and 3 very ugly wins
D = 2-4 however you spin it
F = 1-5 or 0-6

I consider the UT game, albeit disappointing, a respectable loss considering we were on the road down 21-0 and managed to fight back into the game. (lest we remember they were only 0-1 at that point, hardly dejected). They're still Texas, they're still deeper than we are and it showed in the 2nd half. We still beat the teams we were supposed to beat and I am a big believer of "a win's a win".

Therefore: C+

End of Season Grades from here:

A+ = 11-3, CUSA Champs, Bowl Champs
A = 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to P5 School
A- = 10-4, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Champs / 10-4, CUSA Champs, Bowl Loss to G5 school
B+ = 9-5, CUSA West Champs, Bowl Loss
B = 9-4, Competitive vs LA Tech, miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Champs
B- = 8-5, Miss CUSA West by 1 game, Bowl Loss
C+ = 8-5, Bowl win
C = 7-6, Competitive Bowl Loss
C- = 7-6, Bowl Win
D+ = 7-6, Bad Bowl Loss
D = 6-7, Bowl Loss
D- = 6-7, Bad Bowl Loss
F = No Bowl Eligibility

Then why did we play it?? I have agreed with 90% of what you have posted since you came on this board- Welcome BTW!- but this attitude that any game is unwinnable bothers me. It's fine for arm-chair quarterbacks, which we have all become. We can't do anything to impact the game- can only watch it. I hope you didn't have that attitude when you were playing though.

I don't think you can know it's not winnable until hindsight. When you factor in the schedule is made out years in advance.

What looks like a plausible upset in August can look like a pipe dream looking back in December. I doubt anyone (not limited to us) that has been rolled by Baylor this year anticipated they would get beaten as badly as they have back in August.

Once again, if we want to see long-term progress we must reevaluate our scheduling. We should schedule one easy win (FCS school or a team like NMSU, Texas State). One rivalry game (Houston, SMU). One or two games against a P5 or Independent we think we can win (Vandy, Iowa State, Kansas, Army). MAYBE one game against a P5 or Independent that we can be competitive, by competitive I mean keep it within 21. (Texas, OSU, Mizzou, Navy, BYU).

Consistent scheduling of this type of season would win us upward of 10 games every year. With wins come publicity and recruits. Everyone loves a winner and if Rice was 9-0 or 8-1 toward the end of the season it'd be difficult for me to believe more people would not come to games. Plus, being able to say to a recruit (and prove it) that you can win 10 games and beat a P5 school every year is huge. Then recruiting improves and we can finally start being competitive with the likes of Baylor, TCU or A&M.

I know I will be shouted down by those who say no one cares if we win or who we beat if we haven't beaten a Top 10 team. Maybe even those who say it isn't possible to do these things (which I don't see why not). There will also be those who don't care and just want DB fired because he is DB and they will never be happy with what he does. But I sincerely believe this could work and make Rice into a threat like Boise State. Not to mention we have the ability to say we're in Houston with a great education. Not in Boise with a degree barely above a junior college.

If you don't believe this kind of scheduling will get you noticed, go look at Houston's schedule this year. I'll list it here but if you don't believe me google it for yourself.

Tenn Tech, Louisville, Texas State, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, UCF, Vandy, Cincy, Memphis, UConn, Navy

Not exactly a powerhouse of an out of conference schedule (and by that I mean their toughest test is Navy), one very beatable P5 team, and a conference "no one cares about" yet they are undefeated and number 24 in the nation.

(10-12-2015 04:45 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 03:09 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think Sagarin's rankings are just as unreliable as the recruiting rankings. It doesn't take into consideration any intangibles. It doesn't care how young the team may be or injuries it may have. It doesn't care about resources, history etc.

Are you serious? Why should it? What does that EVER have to do with rankings?

Rankings are just rankings. It's a measure of in-season performance. The intangibles are what affects performance. Someone could look at rankings and come to the conclusion that our team sucks, but anyone here, who knows Rice football, should be more responsible than that. Sangarin is not a reflection of where a program is headed and why. I don't want to hear anything about Sagarin. Every poster here should have an appreciation for the struggles and unique challenges at Rice. Those of us who do have that appreciation can see that the program is doing very, very well, and we don't give a damn about what Sagarin says.

??? Speak for yourself I fully understand the challenges, but don't share your assessment. Our football program is not doing "very, very well"; not when the only teams we can be competitive against are ranked outside the Top 100. I fully support the program and the University, but I'm not blinded to reality.