(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, would you be in favor of putting a clause into the next coach's contract that requires a certain percentage or number of wins against top half teams or automatic dismissal? should this percentage increase every so often to avoid plateaus? We might start with 25% and gradually increase the requirement to 75%.

In other words, what can we do with the next guy to insure we get relevant?

(11-24-2015 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In other words, what can we do with the next guy to insure we get relevant?

Not hand out extensions like Halloween candy.

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  More support from the University would be nice. But I don't think there has been a storied history of that, considering I remember stories about how it was going to shut down the athletic department in general. Hopefully, that talk is long dead even after an unfortunate season, but I don't think this season helps garner support from the administration.

I actually think this might not be as bad as it could be. The current AD and department are shockingly competent (in an absolute way and even more so when compared to the clown show that preceded them) and realize that more support is needed to get where we want to go. I think this season highlights the vital importance of funding, investment and high expectations and, in the long term (with the current AD) will likely help us.

For lack of a better phrase, the administration seems to understand that it is time to **** or get off the pot. No more sitting there being happy we are on the pot like we have for the last 50 years.

(11-24-2015 10:47 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In other words, what can we do with the next guy to insure we get relevant?

Not hand out extensions like Halloween candy.

It would be ni9ce to let the next guy know what he has to do to get an extension. What benchmarks would you write into his contract, especially regarding the quality of his wins, and on what timetable?

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

The difference in what those teams have been doing and what we are doing is 1) those teams play in a better conference than we do, 2)they don't lose to bottom 100 teams and 3) they have pulled some upsets against P5 teams. Nothing we can do about our conference, but if we are going to play horrible teams that no one has ever heard of week in and week out, we need to beat them. Bailiff has started losing to bottom 100 the past 2 years (Old Dominion last year, UTEP and UTSA this year). This is unacceptable. And he is consistently uncompetitive against P5 teams. We don't only fail to pull upsets, we get blown out just about every time out.

I think Bailiff will be back in 2016. He will probably be forced to shuffle his staff. He better put up a good year next year or he needs to hit the road.

(11-24-2015 11:50 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

The difference in what those teams have been doing and what we are doing is 1) those teams play in a better conference than we do, 2)they don't lose to bottom 100 teams and 3) they have pulled some upsets against P5 teams. Nothing we can do about our conference, but if we are going to play horrible teams that no one has ever heard of week in and week out, we need to beat them. Bailiff has started losing to bottom 100 the past 2 years (Old Dominion last year, UTEP and UTSA this year). This is unacceptable. And he is consistently uncompetitive against P5 teams. We don't only fail to pull upsets, we get blown out just about every time out.

I think Bailiff will be back in 2016. He will probably be forced to shuffle his staff. He better put up a good year next year or he needs to hit the road.

I wouldn't say Toledo plays in a better conference. But you're exactly right. We need to beat the teams in our conference. My point was that if we didn't have Baylor on our schedule, had beaten Texas, and the teams in our conference, no one would care who we had played even if they were in the bottom half of college football. We'd probably be close to the Top 25 like those teams are.

All is solved with the Al Davis saying, just win baby.

(11-24-2015 01:06 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 11:50 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

The difference in what those teams have been doing and what we are doing is 1) those teams play in a better conference than we do, 2)they don't lose to bottom 100 teams and 3) they have pulled some upsets against P5 teams. Nothing we can do about our conference, but if we are going to play horrible teams that no one has ever heard of week in and week out, we need to beat them. Bailiff has started losing to bottom 100 the past 2 years (Old Dominion last year, UTEP and UTSA this year). This is unacceptable. And he is consistently uncompetitive against P5 teams. We don't only fail to pull upsets, we get blown out just about every time out.

I think Bailiff will be back in 2016. He will probably be forced to shuffle his staff. He better put up a good year next year or he needs to hit the road.

I wouldn't say Toledo plays in a better conference. But you're exactly right. We need to beat the teams in our conference. My point was that if we didn't have Baylor on our schedule, had beaten Texas, and the teams in our conference, no one would care who we had played even if they were in the bottom half of college football. We'd probably be close to the Top 25 like those teams are.

All is solved with the Al Davis saying, just win baby.

Agree with this.

The problem is, we seem to be emulating the Al Davis mentality a tad bit too much. Bailiffs decisions sometimes make Al Davis look like Bob Kraft

(11-24-2015 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It would be ni9ce to let the next guy know what he has to do to get an extension. What benchmarks would you write into his contract, especially regarding the quality of his wins, and on what timetable?

I'm not sure if you're serious here, but writing conditional extensions into the contract sounds like a good idea to me. You could put conditions on the buyout too (e.g. after 3 years the buyout would be lower for 5-31 than for 19-18).

(11-24-2015 01:50 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 11:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It would be ni9ce to let the next guy know what he has to do to get an extension. What benchmarks would you write into his contract, especially regarding the quality of his wins, and on what timetable?

I'm not sure if you're serious here, but writing conditional extensions into the contract sounds like a good idea to me. You could put conditions on the buyout too (e.g. after 3 years the buyout would be lower for 5-31 than for 19-18).

I am serious. If we are to judge our coaches by how they have performed against the top(50,75,100) or by how they have done against top25 or whatever, put it in the contract. No different from setting minimum graduation levels. Then if we are to avoid plateaus, we must set timetables for what we want to happen. I keep hearing about the "ninth year". Well, let's tell the next guy where we expect him to have us at the end of 3, 5, 7 years. The last thing I want to do is repeat this cycle of endless griping about nebulous goals and shifting yardsticks.

(11-24-2015 11:50 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

The difference in what those teams have been doing and what we are doing is 1) those teams play in a better conference than we do, 2)they don't lose to bottom 100 teams and 3) they have pulled some upsets against P5 teams. Nothing we can do about our conference, but if we are going to play horrible teams that no one has ever heard of week in and week out, we need to beat them. Bailiff has started losing to bottom 100 the past 2 years (Old Dominion last year, UTEP and UTSA this year). This is unacceptable. And he is consistently uncompetitive against P5 teams. We don't only fail to pull upsets, we get blown out just about every time out.

I think Bailiff will be back in 2016. He will probably be forced to shuffle his staff. He better put up a good year next year or he needs to hit the road.

I really hope this would not be the condition for his employment in 2017, as I seriously doubt we are going to be world-beaters next year. We'll be playing La. Tech and USM on the road (USM will probably be division favorite, I assume), plus two East teams on the road. We have Baylor, Stanford, Army and PV A&M in non-conference. Depending on the east teams we play (one of which will be MTSU, I assume, since we have not played them yet), I see us probably winning 8 games MAX and no division title. Not enough reason to keep him around.

(11-24-2015 01:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am serious. If we are to judge our coaches by how they have performed against the top(50,75,100) or by how they have done against top25 or whatever, put it in the contract. No different from setting minimum graduation levels. Then if we are to avoid plateaus, we must set timetables for what we want to happen. I keep hearing about the "ninth year". Well, let's tell the next guy where we expect him to have us at the end of 3, 5, 7 years. The last thing I want to do is repeat this cycle of endless griping about nebulous goals and shifting yardsticks.

It wouldn't stop the griping -- the details would be private, and some people just like to gripe -- but I agree that it's a good idea. For all we know, Karlgaard may have negotiated something like that in the 2013 extension.

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

But there's the rub. They won. We didn't.

Until we win too, what difference does any of this make? Take care of our own business, don't worry about the rest.

And I'm not looking for, "We would have upset UT but for 5 turnovers." I'm looking for, "We didn't turn it over, so we beat UT."

David Bailff can obviously get us to the first of those quotes. He did this year. Can he get us to the second?

(11-23-2015 01:16 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  So you mean to tell me that if in 2007 you would have gotten a note left on your front door saying
"Over the next 8 seasons Rice Football will:
1. Have an All-American WR
2. Win its first bowl games since 1961
3. Have an All-American Punter
4. Beat Purdue
5. Beat Kansas twice
6. Have a kicker that leads the nation in 50+ yard kicks made by 5+ FGs
7. Rally from 1-5 to a bowl victory over a United States Military Academy
8. Win the C-USA Championship on your home turf
9. Get Top 25 votes following that CUSA Championship game
10. Go to 3 consecutive bowls
11. Win 2/3 bowls
12. Put 14+ players onto NFL rosters"
You would have said "No thanks, I expect more from a program that has hovered in Mediocre Land for the better part of 50 years."
Members of the Parliament, am I the only one that thinks that is completely delusional?

I wouldn't have said, "No thanks." I would have said, "Well, at least that's better than the last 50 years, but otherwise that doesn't really do much for me."

I'd be impressed with,
1. Have multiple All-Americans, including offense, defense, and special teams
2. Win multiple bowl games
3. Beat P5's that are a lot better than Purdue and Kansas
4. Have a great kicker be a tradition, not an exceptional result
5. Never get to be 1-5, so never have to rally from there
6. Win multiple CUSA championships
7. Get not just top-25 votes, but actually finish in the top-25 multiple times.

14+ players in the NFL is fine, but with that kind of throughput playing in this league, I'd have expected better results with all that talent.

Our problem is that we have to do better than the factors listed below to get noticed on a national level and get to a better conference where we have some American Association of Universities member opponents. The fans are not that interested in the current CUSA opponents so we will either move up or down in the future.

(11-24-2015 06:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 01:16 PM)Holder_Owl_84 Wrote:  So you mean to tell me that if in 2007 you would have gotten a note left on your front door saying
"Over the next 8 seasons Rice Football will:
1. Have an All-American WR
2. Win its first bowl games since 1961
3. Have an All-American Punter
4. Beat Purdue
5. Beat Kansas twice
6. Have a kicker that leads the nation in 50+ yard kicks made by 5+ FGs
7. Rally from 1-5 to a bowl victory over a United States Military Academy
8. Win the C-USA Championship on your home turf
9. Get Top 25 votes following that CUSA Championship game
10. Go to 3 consecutive bowls
11. Win 2/3 bowls
12. Put 14+ players onto NFL rosters"
You would have said "No thanks, I expect more from a program that has hovered in Mediocre Land for the better part of 50 years."
Members of the Parliament, am I the only one that thinks that is completely delusional?

I wouldn't have said, "No thanks." I would have said, "Well, at least that's better than the last 50 years, but otherwise that doesn't really do much for me."

I'd be impressed with,
1. Have multiple All-Americans, including offense, defense, and special teams
2. Win multiple bowl games
3. Beat P5's that are a lot better than Purdue and Kansas
4. Have a great kicker be a tradition, not an exceptional result
5. Never get to be 1-5, so never have to rally from there
6. Win multiple CUSA championships
7. Get not just top-25 votes, but actually finish in the top-25 multiple times.

14+ players in the NFL is fine, but with that kind of throughput playing in this league, I'd have expected better results with all that talent.

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, do I need to post the evidence that refutes this bottom quartile junk? I did it once and will do it again.

If I remember correctly, not beating teams outside the bottom quartile was reserved for 2014, and still, 2015.

(11-24-2015 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, do I need to post the evidence that refutes this bottom quartile junk? I did it once and will do it again.

If I remember correctly, not beating teams outside the bottom quartile was reserved for 2014, and still, 2015.

So a couple programs aside from Marshall in 2013 slipped just inside the bottom quartile. Big whoopee. The gist of my comment is still valid. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our victories over the past 4 years now have come against teams in bottom quintile (not just the bottom quarttile. Must you nit pick everything I write?

(11-24-2015 09:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, do I need to post the evidence that refutes this bottom quartile junk? I did it once and will do it again.

If I remember correctly, not beating teams outside the bottom quartile was reserved for 2014, and still, 2015.

So a couple programs aside from Marshall in 2013 slipped just inside the bottom quartile. Big whoopee. The gist of my comment is still valid. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our victories over the past 4 years now have come against teams in bottom quintile (not just the bottom quarttile. Must you nit pick everything I write?

...I didn't realize that fact-checking was nitpicking.

You can have your own opinions. You don't get to reject reality and substitute your (slightly-worse) own.

(11-24-2015 09:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, do I need to post the evidence that refutes this bottom quartile junk? I did it once and will do it again.

If I remember correctly, not beating teams outside the bottom quartile was reserved for 2014, and still, 2015.

So a couple programs aside from Marshall in 2013 slipped just inside the bottom quartile. Big whoopee. The gist of my comment is still valid. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our victories over the past 4 years now have come against teams in bottom quintile (not just the bottom quarttile. Must you nit pick everything I write?

Walt, when you write comments that present blatantly false material as fact, then yes, I will nitpick. For someone as intelligent as you must be, I am astounded that you continue to ascert things as fact when they are not, and see nothing wrong with that, especially when you are so emphatic about these statements. I do this for other posters as well because it infuriates me to no end that some seem to find it perfectly acceptable to denigrate DB, when as you say, the gist of your argument is valid. Why not just stick with the gist and leave it at that?

I've stated numerous times that I just want DB to get a fair shake, so trying to say he hasn't beat teams inside the Top 75 (he has) or within the upper quartile in the past four years (he has) are untrue and unfair criticisms. Stick with the truth and you won't be nitpicked.

(11-24-2015 10:35 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 09:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-24-2015 08:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-23-2015 11:11 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  To those who are implying the wins against bottom half teams don't really matter, what about Toledo, Houston, or Memphis this year? They don't exactly have powerhouses on their schedules yet they clawed their way into the Top 25. Yes, I know two of them had pretty big upsets against SEC teams but without the what? 5 turnovers at UT? we would have had an upset against them. Additionally, they beat pretty much everyone they were supposed to, but everyone they were supposed to was probably in the bottom half. No one cared they were beating teams in the bottom half, just that they won. Which is what we need to do.

Again, here's the distortion (see bold above). Very few here would be arguing so hard against DB's legacy if the wins he's racked up came against simply "bottom half teams"; the issue is that with only one exceptions over the past 4 years of our bowl run ALL of those wins have come against teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, and that overwhelming majority against teams with ranking outside the Top 100. Combine this with being consistently uncompetitive (let alone winning occasionally) against any team ranked in the Top 75, and you arrive at my conclusion that we've been on a plateau under DB (until this year's jump off the edge) and that he's incapable of taking us to the next level.

Walt, do I need to post the evidence that refutes this bottom quartile junk? I did it once and will do it again.

If I remember correctly, not beating teams outside the bottom quartile was reserved for 2014, and still, 2015.

So a couple programs aside from Marshall in 2013 slipped just inside the bottom quartile. Big whoopee. The gist of my comment is still valid. In fact, the overwhelming majority of our victories over the past 4 years now have come against teams in bottom quintile (not just the bottom quarttile. Must you nit pick everything I write?

...I didn't realize that fact-checking was nitpicking.

You can have your own opinions. You don't get to reject reality and substitute your (slightly-worse) own.

Im glad someone else understands this. I feel like I'm participating in the Primaries at the moment, handing out two or three Pinocchios.