(12-28-2015 03:52 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Also, I am currently out of the country and will be visiting the Middle East and SE Asia - places that don't follow CFB or know much about Rice or american football.

As a result, I will show these graphs to people who have no bias and report back with conclusions.

Would like to see if a neutral observer agrees with me. Because some people here seem to think theres an axe to grind or something. Really, its just all about the data

Get a life dude. Really.

Am enjoying life quite a bit. Relaxed comfortably while I get to demonstrate a viewpoint with numbers. And champagne to celebrate


Anyways, please stick to the subject on hand. I am not represented in the data. If you wish to challenge that Bailiff is a sub par coach based on facts, please proceed. My life or lack thereof isn't really relevant to this forum at all.

(12-28-2015 03:52 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Also, I am currently out of the country and will be visiting the Middle East and SE Asia - places that don't follow CFB or know much about Rice or american football.

As a result, I will show these graphs to people who have no bias and report back with conclusions.

Would like to see if a neutral observer agrees with me. Because some people here seem to think theres an axe to grind or something. Really, its just all about the data

Get a life dude. Really.

I thought he lost his life when you pushed him off of the upper deck.

How is this for incontrovertible, non-judgmental data? The 10 coaches who preceded Bailiff had an aggregate 141-293 record, which would translate to a .324 winning percentage. Plot that point on a graph. Bailiff's winning percentage is .475. Now, plot that point on the same graph. Let me know which point your objective friends on your trip indicate represent a higher point. Just the facts :)

Uh oh. Here comes the strength of schedule to winning percentage ratio.

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Uh oh. Here comes the strength of schedule to winning percentage ratio.

...and waltgreenburg stating again that we can't beat anyone in the top 75.

(12-28-2015 06:21 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  How is this for incontrovertible, non-judgmental data? The 10 coaches who preceded Bailiff had an aggregate 141-293 record, which would translate to a .324 winning percentage. Plot that point on a graph. Bailiff's winning percentage is .475. Now, plot that point on the same graph. Let me know which point your objective friends on your trip indicate represent a higher point. Just the facts :)

Plot those winning averages against strength of schedule, and that might tell a different story.

(12-28-2015 07:16 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Uh oh. Here comes the strength of schedule to winning percentage ratio.

...and waltgreenburg stating again that we can't beat anyone in the top 75.

It's going to take Antarius quite a few more glasses of champagne on that flight to dig up the Sagariun rankings of our opponents in the 80s. I wonder if statistically our 1 and 2 win seasons in the 70s and 80s Southwest Conference were actually higher ranked teams than our 8 and 10 win seasons of the 2000s and 2010s Conference USA. I'd offer to help but I must admit, I have other things to do. I trust Antarius statistics and Walt's expertise will prove we were somehow better in those days therefore Bailiff should still be fired even though he isnt. I'm excited to see it.

(12-28-2015 07:24 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 07:16 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Uh oh. Here comes the strength of schedule to winning percentage ratio.

...and waltgreenburg stating again that we can't beat anyone in the top 75.

It's going to take Antarius quite a few more glasses of champagne on that flight to dig up the Sagariun rankings of our opponents in the 80s. I wonder if statistically our 1 and 2 win seasons in the 70s and 80s Southwest Conference were actually higher ranked teams than our 8 and 10 win seasons of the 2000s and 2010s Conference USA. I'd offer to help but I must admit, I have other things to do. I trust Antarius statistics and Walt's expertise will prove we were somehow better in those days therefore Bailiff should still be fired even though he isnt. I'm excited to see it.

Hey, if anyone can come up with some facts that make Bailiff look bad, it's Antarius. I have complete faith in him.

(12-28-2015 05:28 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:52 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Also, I am currently out of the country and will be visiting the Middle East and SE Asia - places that don't follow CFB or know much about Rice or american football.

As a result, I will show these graphs to people who have no bias and report back with conclusions.

Would like to see if a neutral observer agrees with me. Because some people here seem to think theres an axe to grind or something. Really, its just all about the data

Get a life dude. Really.

I thought he lost his life when you pushed him off of the upper deck.

I can't go there. I'll get banned again.

(12-28-2015 07:16 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:51 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Uh oh. Here comes the strength of schedule to winning percentage ratio.

...and waltgreenburg stating again that we can't beat anyone in the top 75.

A perception bolstered by the chart in post 13 that plots losses on top of wins.
Compress the vertical scale more, and/or make the dots bigger and they aren't seen at all, (which would better represent the views of some.)

(12-28-2015 07:37 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Hey, if anyone can come up with some facts that make Bailiff look bad, it's Antarius. I have complete faith in him.

Digging up such facts is not difficult even after multiple glasses of the bubbly.

As far as "complete faith in him", is the "him" to whom you are referring DB or Antarius?

(12-28-2015 06:21 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  How is this for incontrovertible, non-judgmental data? The 10 coaches who preceded Bailiff had an aggregate 141-293 record, which would translate to a .324 winning percentage. Plot that point on a graph. Bailiff's winning percentage is .475. Now, plot that point on the same graph. Let me know which point your objective friends on your trip indicate represent a higher point. Just the facts :)

Stop with the apples to watermelons comparisons. Those previous 10 coaches never had the luxury of playing 6 - 9 games a year against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football. Also, all of those 10 previous coaches fielded teams that were more competitive against Top 75 opponents than Bailiff has....and those are facts.

(12-28-2015 08:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 07:37 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Hey, if anyone can come up with some facts that make Bailiff look bad, it's Antarius. I have complete faith in him.

Digging up such facts is not difficult even after multiple glasses of the bubbly.

As far as "complete faith in him", is the "him" to whom you are referring DB or Antarius?

Antarius. He's great at finding that messed up data and making it work for him. But I do have faith in David Bailiff as well.

What's messed up about Antarius' data? As you said the data were facts.

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  What's messed up about Antarius' data? As you said the data were facts.

Antarius dwells on the negative. His calling is to destroy Bailiff. I could list several "facts" that make Bailiff look great. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is "great," it just means that he has done some "great" things. So, yes, under Bailiff Rice has beaten some poor competition. At the same time, his teams have mostly taken care of business against those bad teams and advanced to three bowl games, and won two of them. You see what I mean?

(12-28-2015 08:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:21 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  How is this for incontrovertible, non-judgmental data? The 10 coaches who preceded Bailiff had an aggregate 141-293 record, which would translate to a .324 winning percentage. Plot that point on a graph. Bailiff's winning percentage is .475. Now, plot that point on the same graph. Let me know which point your objective friends on your trip indicate represent a higher point. Just the facts :)

Stop with the apples to watermelons comparisons. Those previous 10 coaches never had the luxury of playing 6 - 9 games a year against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football. Also, all of those 10 previous coaches fielded teams that were more competitive against Top 75 opponents than Bailiff has....and those are facts.

And we have more wins now than ever. So how do you like THEM apples? :)

(12-28-2015 08:50 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  What's messed up about Antarius' data? As you said the data were facts.

Antarius dwells on the negative. His calling is to destroy Bailiff. I could list several "facts" that make Bailiff look great. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is "great," it just means that he has done some "great" things. So, yes, under Bailiff Rice has beaten some poor competition. At the same time, his teams have mostly taken care of business against those bad teams and advanced to three bowl games, and won two of them. You see what I mean?

You still didn't explain what's messed up about his data.

I understand you don't agree with his desire to see DB gone (I think we all understand both of your positions), but that doesn't mean his data (facts as you admit) are messed up.

(12-28-2015 09:24 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:50 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:35 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  What's messed up about Antarius' data? As you said the data were facts.

Antarius dwells on the negative. His calling is to destroy Bailiff. I could list several "facts" that make Bailiff look great. It doesn't necessarily mean that he is "great," it just means that he has done some "great" things. So, yes, under Bailiff Rice has beaten some poor competition. At the same time, his teams have mostly taken care of business against those bad teams and advanced to three bowl games, and won two of them. You see what I mean?

You still didn't explain what's messed up about his data.

I understand you don't agree with his desire to see DB gone (I think we all understand both of your positions), but that doesn't mean his data (facts as you admit) are messed up.

I got it wrong. It's not his facts that are "messed up," it's more his agenda that's messed up. The season has long been over and Bailiff is coming back. Let's move on.

(12-28-2015 08:50 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Antarius dwells on the negative. His calling is to destroy Bailiff.

And hear I thought his calling was to sit in expensive airline seats and sip champagne. That sounds way more fun than destroying Bailiff. Is destroying Bailiff really that hard anyway? 21+ point losses in the Bailiff era:
2007: 3
2008: 2
2009: 5
2010: 2
2011: 5
2012: 2
2013: 2
2014: 4
2015: 4

29 games in 9 years where Rice has lost by at least 3 touchdowns. An average of more than 3 each season, with at least 2 such losses each season. Jeeze I hate this discussion. I really started paying close attention to Rice football after 2008. I'm amazed I didn't give up during the 2009 season. I remember listening to games during the Navy/ECU/UCF stretch where Rice was outscored 161-34 and wondering why I was wasting my time.

I have more graphs coming

As for the accusations about my mission to dwell on the negative - my issue with Bailiff stems straight from the numbers and numbers like it. Nothing more nothing less - as for Afflicted and some others, it feels like they are paid by Bailiff to harp for him because the numbers don't back up their side of the story.

So aS Tomball Owl said - what's wrong with the data? And not liking it isn't really a good answer, maybe that works on Texags or cool fans but not here