(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

Why are we talking about Jess Neely? Next we will be discussing concussion rates with leather helmets.

The college and pro games have changed so much since the 50's. What Neely did or didn't do is about as irrelevant as our program is now to the football world; meaning it has no bearing on anything or anyone.

So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:36 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  I do agree GoodOwl that it is incumbent upon the staff to anticipate shortfalls and graduations. The staff knew that they were graduating 5 seniors in the defensive backfield and that is why they tried to get VJ Banks and Destri White game experience. Actually, they had no choice with Destri. Injuries in 2014 to Julius White meant that Destri had to play. What you can't anticipate or at least accurately plan for are injuries. Remember 2014? Injuries decimated the team at the beginning of the year (thanks a lot Kyle Field!). Also, the unanticipated graduations hurt: Covington and Nordstrom. I honestly believe that David thought that he would get them back for 2015 hence the optimism for 2015.

We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

With those low expectations, no wonder you're ok with Bailiff remaining as coach. But why are we paying him 800k for that level of performance?

(11-06-2015 12:45 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

With those low expectations, no wonder you're ok with Bailiff remaining as coach. But why are we paying him 800k for that level of performance?

if we won 10 games every four years, that would put him in a category of coaches earning more than that level.

Yes, I would be fine with that frequency of 10 win seasons.

How often do you think a coach needs to win 10 games to maintain his job here? Once every 2 years? 2 out of 3 years? Every year?

Just asking.

Do you think that a 'rebuilding year' is unreasonable?

(11-06-2015 12:56 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 12:45 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

With those low expectations, no wonder you're ok with Bailiff remaining as coach. But why are we paying him 800k for that level of performance?

if we won 10 games every four years, that would put him in a category of coaches earning more than that level.

Yes, I would be fine with that frequency of 10 win seasons.

How often do you think a coach needs to win 10 games to maintain his job here? Once every 2 years? 2 out of 3 years? Every year?

Just asking.

Do you think that a 'rebuilding year' is unreasonable?

The real question should be, how often do we have to reach that 10 win level to get to the next level?

My guess - 5 out of 6.

(11-06-2015 02:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The real question should be, how often do we have to reach that 10 win level to get to the next level?
My guess - 5 out of 6.

Sounds about right if we are counting on football to carry us.

If basketball is going to the Dance every year, and baseball is getting to Omaha regularly, I think the bar is lowered for football. And that's probably a more likely route to achieve, if any route is likely.

Winning nine or ten games every four years or so against very weak opponents would not be satisfactory. To date, that has not gotten us out of the 50-75 rankings.
We can and should do better.

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:47 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We know we are losing Jackson to graduation. We know Stehling has one year left. We know Stehling hasn't look Stehllar at all (apologies for the pun).

And yet when down by 4 scores, Jackson continues to play and yet the demeanor and plays indicate we have thrown in the towel (example a 9 minute 34 second 4th Q drive when down 28 agAINST ut).

So, come next year - year 10- what happens? Why has German not had a decent shot to get reps and see what he can do? Does 2016 and now 2017 become convenient "rebuilding" years? due to losing our senior QB and then losing his replacement? This feels like groundhog day.

To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

(11-06-2015 10:59 AM)ranfin Wrote:  Winning nine or ten games every four years or so against very weak opponents would not be satisfactory. To date, that has not gotten us out of the 50-75 rankings.
We can and should do better.

(11-06-2015 12:21 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Cycling to 9, 10, 11 win seasons with a conference championship and/or bowl win mixed in would be fine.

Where we end up in the rankings could vary. No reason that 50-75 is the upper limit. But more concerned with the W's since that is what we play for.

I can only speak for me. Assume by your question you would not be OK with that frequency of really good seasons?

(11-05-2015 11:38 PM)ranfin Wrote:  So, "cycling" every four years or so to the top 50-75 range is something we should find pretty much AOK?

(11-05-2015 10:53 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:40 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  To your point, Ant, a poster recently mentioned things go in cycles. Try as I might, I couldn't help thinking we might be mostly in this type of cycle, with some variation in order:

Youth
Injuries
"This one's on me"
New AD--extension year
Rinse and Repeat

with the exception of one conference championship every 10 years when the CUSA office makes a decision about a game. And (b)owl games every year as far as the eye can see (CUSA has 7 minor bowl tie ins now, I think.)

That's better than Div III or no football at all. Not sure by how much, but it is better.

I'll take credit for the cycling theory, based on recruiting following positive results and noting that Jess Neely had cycles in the 1950's.

I'll assume that 10 win seasons meet your test of a decent season at worst.

In that scenario, Bailiff has 2 really good seasons out of 9. That's 1 out of 4.5 years. So the good news is that the frequency is much better than 1 in 10. I'm hoping that as we continue to win, we cycle up a bit. So maybe 1 out of 4 which is roughly what Neely did.

That probably doesn't make you feel better. But it's a lot more frequent recurrence that what you're worried about.

It barely got us above #50, to #48, in 2008. We were #69 in both 2013 and 2014 (despite there being a 2 game swing in wins/losses).

FWIW, here is how Rice has fared in my system:

2015 (to date): 97
2014: 66
2013: 58
2012: 75
2011: 86
2010: 91
2009: 107
2008: 26
2007: 98
2006: 64
2005: 105

We can cycle to top 25 range every ten years.

(11-06-2015 12:04 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  FWIW, here is how Rice has fared in my system:

2015 (to date): 97
2014: 66
2013: 58
2012: 75
2011: 86
2010: 91
2009: 107
2008: 26
2007: 98
2006: 64
2005: 105

We were 74 in Sagarin when we went 5-6 in the 90's. We won 10 games in 2013 and were #69.

That summarizes exactly why 10 win seasons aren't the be all and end all and how you can be a mediocre coach and still rack up 10 wins against the dregs.

(11-06-2015 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We were 74 in Sagarin when we went 5-6 in the 90's. We won 10 games in 2013 and were #69.

That summarizes exactly why 10 win seasons aren't the be all and end all and how you can be a mediocre coach and still rack up 10 wins against the dregs.

Yep, life in the G5 is hard, especially when we are talking about doing anything with your Sagarin ranking, regardless of . Inevitably, playing enough G5 teams over the course of the season does little to elevate your Sagarin ranking (which is used, primarily because it is easy to search).

Looking at 2014, Marshall was the highest rated G5 at #23 (which is surprising given that they beat no one) and then it was Louisiana Tech at #34 (after #32 NDSU interestingly enough), and then Boise State (#46) and Memphis (#39) rounding out the Top 40. So I think that helps illustrate the difficulty of breaking into the Top 40 as a G5 - just 10% of the teams in the Top 40 were G5s, and none were in the Top 20.

But I think more telling is 2013. In the first non-P5 was NDSU (#17 - Woh!) and then UCF at #25. That is the same UCF that beat AP ranked teams in Baylor (#9 in Sagarin) in the Fiesta Bowl and Louisville (#20 in Sagarin), and only lose to ranked South Carolina (#10 in Sagarin) by 3. I think that helps illustrate how hard it is to do much of anything as a G5 in Sagarin rankings.

The next G5 is Bowling Green, down at #39. So only two G5s in the Top 40 (excluding FCS teams). Other G5 teams above us in 2013 included: Utah State (#41), Houston (#50), Navy (#51), Fresno State (#54), NIU (#59), Marshall (#61), UNT (#63), Cinci (#67), and Toledo (#68).

(11-06-2015 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We were 74 in Sagarin when we went 5-6 in the 90's. We won 10 games in 2013 and were #69.

That summarizes exactly why 10 win seasons aren't the be all and end all and how you can be a mediocre coach and still rack up 10 wins against the dregs.

Other than beating two SEC teams (A&M and Miss St) I don't see how we could've improved our ranking by much in 2013. So in Bailiff's 10 win seasons, a "good" coach would've done what instead? Gotten to 11 wins? Not lose by blowout in the losses to top 25 SEC teams? Won C-USA undefeated? Won a national title? The difference between what you think we should've done and what we actually did with Bailiff is not much (maybe beating UH and North Texas?), unless you expect to beat the aforementioned SEC programs. Call the 10-win seasons what they were - good seasons. Can't take those away from DB or Rice. The 5-6 teams int the 90's were solid teams, a small step down from the 96 and 97 teams. Those first 5 years were the peak of Hatfield teams (playing with some SWC recruits). Bailiff got us back to that level and beyond.

(11-06-2015 02:18 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We were 74 in Sagarin when we went 5-6 in the 90's. We won 10 games in 2013 and were #69.

That summarizes exactly why 10 win seasons aren't the be all and end all and how you can be a mediocre coach and still rack up 10 wins against the dregs.

Other than beating two SEC teams (A&M and Miss St) I don't see how we could've improved our ranking by much in 2013. So in Bailiff's 10 win seasons, a "good" coach would've done what instead? Gotten to 11 wins? Not lose by blowout in the losses to top 25 SEC teams? Won C-USA undefeated? Won a national title? The difference between what you think we should've done and what we actually did with Bailiff is not much (maybe beating UH and North Texas?), unless you expect to beat the aforementioned SEC programs. Call the 10-win seasons what they were - good seasons. Can't take those away from DB or Rice. The 5-6 teams int the 90's were solid teams, a small step down from the 96 and 97 teams. Those first 5 years were the peak of Hatfield teams (playing with some SWC recruits). Bailiff got us back to that level and beyond.

Yes. Beating UH and North Texas.

Sorry, climbing to 69th best and dropping two losses to weak C-USA and UH is hardly "good".

EDITED due to WIowl's clarification.

(11-06-2015 02:44 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 02:18 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 01:27 PM)Antarius Wrote:  We were 74 in Sagarin when we went 5-6 in the 90's. We won 10 games in 2013 and were #69.

That summarizes exactly why 10 win seasons aren't the be all and end all and how you can be a mediocre coach and still rack up 10 wins against the dregs.

Other than beating two SEC teams (A&M and Miss St) I don't see how we could've improved our ranking by much in 2013. So in Bailiff's 10 win seasons, a "good" coach would've done what instead? Gotten to 11 wins? Not lose by blowout in the losses to top 25 SEC teams? Won C-USA undefeated? Won a national title? The difference between what you think we should've done and what we actually did with Bailiff is not much (maybe beating UH and North Texas?), unless you expect to beat the aforementioned SEC programs. Call the 10-win seasons what they were - good seasons. Can't take those away from DB or Rice. The 5-6 teams int the 90's were solid teams, a small step down from the 96 and 97 teams. Those first 5 years were the peak of Hatfield teams (playing with some SWC recruits). Bailiff got us back to that level and beyond.

Yes. Beating UH and North Texas.

Sorry, climbing to 69th best and dropping two losses to weak C-USA is hardly "good".

Houston was a non-conference loss.