Dan has a strong opinion on why Patterson was fired. Discusses his view on Rice Football. This is the view from the National media when you don't beat top teams. UT is a bad team but guess what we beat OK and once again we become somewhat relevant. Rice can go to a bowl every year with a 7-5, 8-4 records but no one cares since they are beating the really bad teams. Best hope is to get to a bowl, get a ranked team and beat them. Have a great weekend.

https://youtu.be/qBxuu1Bc_2M

He just says Rice is one of the most incompetent programs of all time, which I guess, good for him. No press is bad press?

That is the perception out there. I think our basketball program can change that.

(10-16-2015 11:25 AM)07owl Wrote:  He just says Rice is one of the most incompetent programs of all time, which I guess, good for him. No press is bad press?

There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

(10-16-2015 04:15 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

(10-16-2015 05:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:15 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

Talking from a program perspective, when was the last time we beat a good, big name program? Texas in '94?

(10-16-2015 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:15 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

Talking from a program perspective, when was the last time we beat a good, big name program? Texas in '94?

At this point, the Boise win in 2001 looks pretty good (they were good back then as well), although it's a stretch to think that the general Joe Q. Six-Pack Public recognized it then.

BYU had been known as QB U, for quite some time, had a partial NC under their belt, and certainly was well known as a winning program that regularly beat teams in the 'more prestigious' conferences when we beat them in 1997 I think.

Arkansas 1989. LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas in 1980.

I assume you wouldn't count Baylor, Tech or U of H.

(10-16-2015 07:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:15 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

Talking from a program perspective, when was the last time we beat a good, big name program? Texas in '94?

At this point, the Boise win in 2001 looks pretty good (they were good back then as well), although it's a stretch to think that the general Joe Q. Six-Pack Public recognized it then.

BYU had been known as QB U, for quite some time, had a partial NC under their belt, and certainly was well known as a winning program that regularly beat teams in the 'more prestigious' conferences when we beat them in 1997 I think.

Arkansas 1989. LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas in 1980.

I assume you wouldn't count Baylor, Tech or U of H.

We destroyed a ranked Utah team 51-10 in '96.

I didn't realized we haven't beat a ranked team in almost 2 decades. Last time was 1997 against #21 BYU.

(10-17-2015 08:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 04:15 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  There's truth to it. We don't win the big games and there's no hope to us winning the big games. Difficult to be recognized nationally when we have the mentality of "keeping it respectable" or "glorified practices" when playing the big teams. It won't get better either.

...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

Talking from a program perspective, when was the last time we beat a good, big name program? Texas in '94?

At this point, the Boise win in 2001 looks pretty good (they were good back then as well), although it's a stretch to think that the general Joe Q. Six-Pack Public recognized it then.

BYU had been known as QB U, for quite some time, had a partial NC under their belt, and certainly was well known as a winning program that regularly beat teams in the 'more prestigious' conferences when we beat them in 1997 I think.

Arkansas 1989. LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas in 1980.

I assume you wouldn't count Baylor, Tech or U of H.

We destroyed a ranked Utah team 51-10 in '96.

Was a great game for Rice but Utah ended the season 8-4 and unranked.

(10-17-2015 12:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 08:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 07:55 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:44 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...but we don't even keep it respectable. That's the problem.

Talking from a program perspective, when was the last time we beat a good, big name program? Texas in '94?

At this point, the Boise win in 2001 looks pretty good (they were good back then as well), although it's a stretch to think that the general Joe Q. Six-Pack Public recognized it then.

BYU had been known as QB U, for quite some time, had a partial NC under their belt, and certainly was well known as a winning program that regularly beat teams in the 'more prestigious' conferences when we beat them in 1997 I think.

Arkansas 1989. LSU, Texas A&M, Arkansas in 1980.

I assume you wouldn't count Baylor, Tech or U of H.

We destroyed a ranked Utah team 51-10 in '96.

Was a great game for Rice but Utah ended the season 8-4 and unranked.

They got a bowl and we (7-4) didn't

Same story the next year. We beat 6-0 New Mexico on the road and they had just gotten ranked. We did not go to a bowl (again 7-4) and I think UNM did, IIRC

(10-17-2015 01:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  They got a bowl and we (7-4) didn't

Same story the next year. We beat 6-0 New Mexico on the road and they had just gotten ranked. We did not go to a bowl (again 7-4) and I think UNM did, IIRC

As you probably remember, there were fewer bowls back then, and the WAC-16 only had 2 tie-ins.

Utah bowling in '96 was a fiasco, but Wyoming (10-2 and division champions) was shafted more than we were.

The next year, in response to that, they guaranteed that the division champions would get the bowl bids. UNM won our division and deserved to go.

Conferences, bowl tie-ins, spilled milk in the past, at the end of the day none of that matters.

We have to take charge of our own future and simply become so good, year in and year out, that we cannot be ignored. 8-4 and 7-5 don't get that done, but they do get bowl bids, and right now that's good enough. It won't be forever, but for now I still think we need to focus more on basketball and facilities and marketing. The time will come that football will have to step up another notch or two.

(10-17-2015 01:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Conferences, bowl tie-ins, spilled milk in the past, at the end of the day none of that matters.

We have to take charge of our own future and simply become so good, year in and year out, that we cannot be ignored. 8-4 and 7-5 don't get that done, but they do get bowl bids, and right now that's good enough. It won't be forever, but for now I still think we need to focus more on basketball and facilities and marketing. The time will come that football will have to step up another notch or two.

I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. Basketball is now humming along and assuming Rhoades continues to rock, will keep growing.

We now have the magical EZF being built that has been lauded as the silver bullet for some time.

At what point do we expect more than this continued display of football irrelevance? At some point especially if there is another realignment, it may be game over.

Dan is not wrong. But he's referring to 50 years of "incompetence." Rice has improved in the past few years. Still not a top 50 program but top 75, or certainly not bottom 10 anymore. It's not the coach, is my point. We couldn't have been so bad for 50 years in selecting head coaches. It's everything else that's made us a poor program, only recently becoming a program that wins the conference and bowl games against G5 schools.

(10-17-2015 02:03 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 01:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Conferences, bowl tie-ins, spilled milk in the past, at the end of the day none of that matters.

We have to take charge of our own future and simply become so good, year in and year out, that we cannot be ignored. 8-4 and 7-5 don't get that done, but they do get bowl bids, and right now that's good enough. It won't be forever, but for now I still think we need to focus more on basketball and facilities and marketing. The time will come that football will have to step up another notch or two.

I don't see why they have to be mutually exclusive. Basketball is now humming along and assuming Rhoades continues to rock, will keep growing.

We now have the magical EZF being built that has been lauded as the silver bullet for some time.

At what point do we expect more than this continued display of football irrelevance? At some point especially if there is another realignment, it may be game over.

Tulane proves that winning in football doesn't matter too much to conferences. They did show however that they were investing in their program by building a new stadium. We have now finally started to show that we will support our program as necessary and try and pull our weight. I don't know if Tulane gets invited to the AAC if they don't show the commitment towards football they did.

(10-17-2015 02:03 PM)Antarius Wrote:  At what point do we expect more than this continued display of football irrelevance? At some point especially if there is another realignment, it may be game over.

That's a real risk. But forgive us for not unanimously accepting your proposed solution/fantasy of firing Bailiff and replacing him with some NFL coordinator.

(10-17-2015 02:21 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:03 PM)Antarius Wrote:  At what point do we expect more than this continued display of football irrelevance? At some point especially if there is another realignment, it may be game over.

That's a real risk. But forgive us for not unanimously accepting your proposed solution/fantasy of firing Bailiff and replacing him with some NFL coordinator.

I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

(10-17-2015 02:16 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Dan is not wrong. But he's referring to 50 years of "incompetence." Rice has improved in the past few years. Still not a top 50 program but top 75, or certainly not bottom 10 anymore. It's not the coach, is my point. We couldn't have been so bad for 50 years in selecting head coaches. It's everything else that's made us a poor program, only recently becoming a program that wins the conference and bowl games against G5 schools.

We were a bad program because nobody in charge gave a damn. Remember, we weren't just bad at football, we were godawful at EVERYTHING. IIRC we did not win a single conference championship in any sport for over 20 years. That is incredible futility.

I don't think that situation exists any more. But you don't be as bad as we were for as long as we were without some lingering effects.

For Rice to be a consistently top-50 national football program, Rice will have to change. Admissions will have to be weakened for football. Money will have to be poured into the program. Risks will have to be taken on marginal students who are potential difference-makers. There are simply NOT that many quality players available who also have the academics to succeed at Rice right now.

If you're willing to sacrifice the higher ground and jump into the mud, Rice can be top-50 quality.