Not sure I saw this one posted here. Yes, we're waiting for next year, and much of what this says is what many of us feel to be the case. Still, it's nice to see the publicity and optimism for the future from the media.

Despite Losing Season, the Future's Not So Bleak for Rice Basketball
By John Royal Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8 a.m.




Rice head coach Mike Rhoades encourages his team from the sidelines.

The Rice Owls' basketball season ended Wednesday night just like most other games during the year. The Owls lost 79-69 to Charlotte in the Conference USA Tournament. Rice fans are familiar with the details of the loss. The team falls behind by a lot but stages a furious comeback to get back into the game. But ultimately it proves to be too big a hill to climb and the team loses.

The team’s final record for the season was 12-20. Just another losing season in many, many losing seasons for the team. It’s got to be hard to feel optimistic about this team, to feel good about the sport, what with loss after loss after loss. Good losses, bad losses, they are still just losses, and losing stings.

But there is hope. Seriously. There is hope for the future, and that future may be as soon as next season. And when it does happen, it’s going to be a form of basketball unlike any ever seen from the Rice Owls.

Mike Rhoades was the assistant coach to Shaka Smart at VCU when he was hired to head up the Owls. Shaka Smart’s VCU teams (and now his Texas teams, where he is the coach) were known for playing 40 minutes of uptempo, fast-break basketball that hopefully wreaked havoc on the opposition. That’s not been the case, yet, at Rice.

“Everybody thought he would automatically be havoc and ‘Shaka Smart,” Owls radio announcer J.P. Heath told the Press. “But he [Rhoades] said, 'We can’t do that exactly yet,' so eventually he wants to get up to an 11-12 [man] rotation. You’ve got seven now; it could be nine or ten strong next year.”

That’s where the hope comes in. The Owls were pretty much a seven-man team this season, and it’s difficult to play uptempo, fast-break basketball for 40 minutes when there are just seven players. So at times the team slowed things up, played a set offense. But there’d be moments in each game when the team would kick it into high speed and it was like the Owls were a different team, or as Rhoades has referred to it, the team has gone downhill and attacked.

“You hear me all of the time — I want to push it whether misses or makes,” Rhoades says. “But sometimes we have to run our stuff. Because of our depth, there’s times when we have to set up and burn a little clock.”

Rice is losing one player from the rotation, point guard Max Guercy, but the core of the rotation, including Conference USA Freshman of the Year and First Team All-Conference guard Marcus Evans, returns as do fellow freshmen Connor Cashaw and Marquez Letcher-Ellis. Also returning are the team’s second leading scorer, sophomore Egor Koulechov, and junior center Andrew Drone. Marcus Jackson and Chad Lott, who were supposed to be key cogs for the Owls this season before suffering season-ending injuries right before the season started, are also returning for next season (and there was some preseason hype that said Lott was better than Evans).

So you take those guys and the recruits coming in for next season, and suddenly the Owls are looking at a deep bench that lets them go downhill and attack for the entire game, playing havoc with opposing teams.

“It’s a lot of fun,” Evans says of the uptempo play. “That’s why a lot of guys come here, to play fast. And when we play that fast, we get a lot more possessions, guys get more shots. It’s just fun for everyone out there when we’re playing that fast.”

So if things work as planned, all the Rice games will start to look a bit like what Shaka Smart’s VCU teams looked like when they were NCAA Tournament fixtures. It might also look a lot like the game against FIU that Rice won 86-70 that was a fast-paced, uptempo affair. And there are flashes in each game, usually involving Evans and Letcher-Ellis running a fast break, that show the promise of just how spectacular the Owls can be.

“It’s a fun way to play,” Rhoades said. “I’ve always wanted to play that way, and we’re always going to play that way, for sure.”

Yes, the Owls had another losing season. Yes, it’s hard to deal with the fact that this happens every season. But the Owls have talent and there’s more talent coming. The Owls have a coach with a plan that he’s putting into action. And that plan involves a fun style of play. So be ready Rice fans because the future’s almost here, and that future’s going to be a blast.

It was either posted here or on FB but I like that someone notices the positives heading into next season. I saw the basketball account tweeted about a summer tournament "camp" hosted by the owls. Anyone of varsity age/AAU can bring a team to play on campus. I'm not sure if it's new but I definitely like it.

Also, this recent short video from Rhoades:

Coach Rhoades Recalls His Road to the Final Four & What it All Means to Rice

and, of course, this one was nice as well:

The article mentions a fast-paced offense a lot, but not having the personnel to play that way this season wasn't the problem. The problem was the defense. According to Pomeroy, the Owls finished with the 15th-worst adjusted defensive rating in Division I, giving up an average of 1.146 points per opponents' possession (the best was Wichita State at 0.880, and national champion Villanova was sixth at 0.922). It should also be noted that tempo isn't necessarily the end-all and be-all of successful basketball; while Rice was 87th at adjusted tempo with an average of 70.7 possessions per game, Villanova was 294th at 66.5, Shaka Smart's run-and-gun crew at Texas was 301st at 66.4, and regional finalist Virginia was 350th at 61.9, just ahead (behind?) in-state rival and Vegas16 champion Old Dominion at 62.0 (the 351st and slowest team was Denver at 61.9).

In the end, the numbers tell the story, and the Owls' win-loss record in Rhodes's first two seasons hasn't been very good. Rhodes has talked a good game so far, but next season will be put-up or shut-up time for him.

The good thing is I think next year we actually will put up, unlike under Braun, because this team has over achieved numerous times already and we don't have the mass defections. Rhoades was dealt a pretty crappy hand this year with the two big injuries, and one has to assume that the defensive numbers were hurt by not having both those players. We talk about how we couldn't run as fast of an offense as we wanted because we were missing those two players, but more importantly, we were unable to play the type of suffocating defense Rhoades wants to because of the lack of bodies.

But should we falter again next year and only improve slightly, boy oh boy, do I wonder what things will look like around here.

In the end the numbers really, really don't come close to telling the story.

If you saw every game you realize that (1) the talent level is much improved, (2) the basketball is exciting, (3) the students are back at Tudor, (4) Marcus, Conor and Egor were great to watch every game, (5) Marquez is an outstanding prospect with unlimited potential and (6) the program is obviously heading in the right direction.

I'll never forget the program that the athletic department and Jones School presented that featured a speech by Jeff Luhnow. He talked about the analytics the Astros used and stated, "we use the stats to rate players and determine their potential draft position and trade value, then we send a scout to see if they can play baseball."

This year's numbers are about as important.

Rhoades numbers are quite similar to those of Scott Thompson's first two years. Scott went 6-21 and 12-16. In fact year 3 produced 1 less win than year 2, but starting with year 4 the winning started. I would argue that Mike has started from roughly the same place as Thompson in terms of inherited players but unlike Scott year 2 brought 2 significant injuries that no doubt impacted the season's record.

I don't think anyone here would say that the Thompson years weren't the best ones for Rice in the last 40+ years so if Mike is close to where Scott was in year 2 I am OK with that.

(04-08-2016 08:51 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Rhoades numbers are quite similar to those of Scott Thompson's first two years. Scott went 6-21 and 12-16. In fact year 3 produced 1 less win than year 2, but starting with year 4 the winning started. I would argue that Mike has started from roughly the same place as Thompson in terms of inherited players but unlike Scott year 2 brought 2 significant injuries that no doubt impacted the season's record.

I don't think anyone here would say that the Thompson years weren't the best ones for Rice in the last 40+ years so if Mike is close to where Scott was in year 2 I am OK with that.

Exactly.

He has also started out about like Knodel did (again from a pretty similar starting point) and year 4 under Knodel was an SWC championship. If Mike gets a conference championship in year 4, I think we will all be happy.

Unfortunately, Rhoades's results (from a numbers standpoint) look a lot like Ben Braun's. Took over a program that had been very very bad the prior year, saw about a 100-place improvement in ranking in year 1, and then slid back about 50 places in year 2.

Year 3 was Braun's best year, so just to keep pace Rhoades is going to need to see another big improvement in year 3 of about 100 places in rankings.


Here are the KenPom rankings:
- Year prior to Braun's hire: 319
- 6 years of Braun's tenure: 232, 263, 161, 147, 323, 315

- Year prior to Rhoades's hire: 315
- All years of Rhoades's tenure: 209, 266, ?...

At this point, I think I'd be reasonably pleased if Rhoades simply keeps up with Braun through next year (year 3). I certainly don't love the idea of Rhoades's tenure looking like Braun's, but realistically I'm not expecting any real separation between them until year 4. That's when things started to go south on Braun (negligible improvement), and then the wheels really fell off in year 5.

I can see your point, and it makes some sense from a numbers perspective, JOwl. At the moment, I think I agree more with Tiki and Owl69's posts above.

Having witnessed Thompson's beginning, I would say that although the wins were not there the first three years, the general feel of the team quality and expectations, as well as the increased dedication to improving achievement both individually and team-wise that evolved over his first three seasons appears more similar to me so far than what I remember witnessing of Braun's first several teams.

I remember seeing the Braun-coached team play in the Vegas tournament at the South Pointe when Kazemi and Oraby, among others, were touted to be a marked improvement over the players Wilson had. What I witnessed was a completely disjointed mess, with the players seemingly having no concept of team play, especially on defense. As I was there with a guest, who I had been touting Rice's pending improvement under then still new coach Braun, it was to me an embarrassment.

Afterwards, my guest tried to pay some compliments, but I had to stop them short and just remark that the truth was that what we saw demonstrated a remarkable lack of team understanding on the part of the players. I was unsure who was more to blame--the coach or the players themselves. In no way did I see any true spark of the talent that Rhoades' current players demonstrate to me so far.

Even Kazemi at that time (and it was early in his career, no doubt) seemed to me to be vastly overrated. Unlike Evans, it was a real question to me how good he really was back then. Of course, Kazemi later improved, and became a decent player, but in his beginning years he was certainly no Marcus Evans or even Egor Koulachov, and those early Braun teams were far more disjointed in play than what we have seen from Rhoades so far. I would even remember Brent Scott, who was still working to find himself and make big adjustments to the college game as he grew his freshman year, being better his first seasons.

Braun's teams failed as much for reasons outside of his actual coaching--they never seemed cohesive, and that makes more sense now in hindsight of how it fell apart and what all happened. I'll give Braun credit for trying a somewhat out-of-the-box approach to try to jump-start Rice to success. Although he failed, he did realize the need to do something different that what we had been doing.

Rhoades to me is the right approach for us at this time. He appears to be a solid guy himself, a gym-rat type, and a likeable guy, but a single-minded one dedicated with most everything he has said and done to pushing forward to achieve excellence. I appreciate his personal style of candor in his interviews. Every coach is different, and they each have to be who they are, but his style is one that resonates with me.

I would guess that these first two losing seasons have been hard on Rhoades, as he appears to be used to winning with tons of hard work that pays off. But I do not think he is discouraged--I think he is the type to rededicate himself to pushing even further to get things done and achieve, which bodes well for Rice, in my opinion. As many of us know, coaching successfully at Rice is easier said than done in all sports. I commend Rhoades for taking the long approach with Jackson and Lott this season and not rushing them back at the end, although it might have helped him a little.

I think Rhoades has the makeup to stick out the tough early building seasons at the beginning of his coaching tenure here, and the fortitude to carry his teams through to breakthrough seasons in the future. I hope he can stay around long enough to build something solid and lasting, like Shaka Smart seems to have at VCU, and that the Rice admin will properly reward him and fight to keep him should he attain that success here.

It is still early on, but with the quality of Rhoades' past recruits and their apparent makeup, plus what seems to be coming back and in for this upcoming season, I would think we'll see improvement enough to satisfy most on the board barring some catastrophe of injury like before this season, and even then, I'd think we'll be in better shape this fall to weather it that last year.

(04-08-2016 08:18 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  In the end the numbers really, really don't come close to telling the story.

If you saw every game you realize that (1) the talent level is much improved, (2) the basketball is exciting, (3) the students are back at Tudor, (4) Marcus, Conor and Egor were great to watch every game, (5) Marquez is an outstanding prospect with unlimited potential and (6) the program is obviously heading in the right direction.

Maybe - or maybe not. Over my years of following not only Rice sports but sports in general, I've heard plenty of coaches talk the talk that Rhodes has and promptly fail to walk the walk. The future can never be assumed.

Quote:I'll never forget the program that the athletic department and Jones School presented that featured a speech by Jeff Luhnow. He talked about the analytics the Astros used and stated, "we use the stats to rate players and determine their potential draft position and trade value, then we send a scout to see if they can play baseball."

This year's numbers are about as important.

The truth always lies in the numbers, two in particular. For Rhodes, those numbers are 24 career wins and 40 career losses as head coach at Rice. That .375 winning percentage is only 14th out of 24 head men's basketball coaches in Rice history (even Tommy Suitts had a better winning percentage than that!). I think even Luhnow would agree that, in the end, you are what your record says you are. While past results don't necessarily guarantee future results, they do tend to be broadly predictive. There's still time for Rhodes to walk the walk, but eventually reasons for not winning will turn into excuses.

(04-09-2016 02:05 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 08:18 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  In the end the numbers really, really don't come close to telling the story.

If you saw every game you realize that (1) the talent level is much improved, (2) the basketball is exciting, (3) the students are back at Tudor, (4) Marcus, Conor and Egor were great to watch every game, (5) Marquez is an outstanding prospect with unlimited potential and (6) the program is obviously heading in the right direction.

Maybe - or maybe not. Over my years of following not only Rice sports but sports in general, I've heard plenty of coaches talk the talk that Rhodes has and promptly fail to walk the walk. The future can never be assumed.

Quote:I'll never forget the program that the athletic department and Jones School presented that featured a speech by Jeff Luhnow. He talked about the analytics the Astros used and stated, "we use the stats to rate players and determine their potential draft position and trade value, then we send a scout to see if they can play baseball."

This year's numbers are about as important.

The truth always lies in the numbers, two in particular. For Rhodes, those numbers are 24 career wins and 40 career losses as head coach at Rice. That .375 winning percentage is only 14th out of 24 head men's basketball coaches in Rice history (even Tommy Suitts had a better winning percentage than that!). I think even Luhnow would agree that, in the end, you are what your record says you are. While past results don't necessarily guarantee future results, they do tend to be broadly predictive. There's still time for Rhodes to walk the walk, but eventually reasons for not winning will turn into excuses.

Jonathan, it would appear from your comments above that you have not been to Tudor the past two seasons to see this team play under Rhoades, or followed his recruiting success. This is anything but your typical, historical Rice sports program. And to say that you are what your record is absurd given the empty cubbard that Rhoades inherited and was forced to play with his first year, and the loss of who were perceived to be his two best players just before this season. This is a VERY young and talented team that will be even more talented-- and finally with some depth-- heading into Rhoades' third year. It's also a very exciting style of play to watch, which has generated a dramatic increase in season ticket holders and overall attendance.

I used to think Rhoades would take us to the Dance in his third year. Still possible, although I might have been a little too "Optimistic". Next year I want us well above .500, and no injury excuses even if we have injuries. Dance in the fourth year.

Stats be damned, I am still more optimistic about the basketball future than I have been in a long time.

There aren't enough numbers (seasons) to be statistically significant. The numbers tell us very little at this point.
If you watch the games, they tell the story[/quote]

(04-09-2016 02:05 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

Quote:[quote='Houston Owl' pid='13176847' dateline='1460121535']
In the end the numbers really, really don't come close to telling the story.

If you saw every game you realize that (1) the talent level is much improved, (2) the basketball is exciting, (3) the students are back at Tudor, (4) Marcus, Conor and Egor were great to watch every game, (5) Marquez is an outstanding prospect with unlimited potential and (6) the program is obviously heading in the right direction.

Maybe - or maoybe not. Over my years of following not only Rice sports but sports in general, I've heard plenty of coaches talk the talk that Rhodes has and promptly fail to walk the walk. The future can never be assumed.

Quote:I'll never forget the program that the athletic department and Jones School presented that featured a speech by Jeff Luhnow. He talked about the analytics the Astros used and stated, "we use the stats to rate players and determine their potential draft position and trade value, then we send a scout to see if they can play baseball."

This year's numbers are about as important.

The truth always lies in the numbers, two in particular. For Rhodes, those numbers are 24 career wins and 40 career losses as head coach at Rice. That .375 winning percentage is only 14th out of 24 head men's basketball coaches in Rice history (even Tommy Suitts had a better winning percentage than that!). I think even Luhnow would agree that, in the end, you are what your record says you are. While past results don't necessarily guarantee future results, they do tend to be broadly predictive. There's still time for Rhodes to walk the walk, but eventually reasons for not winning will turn into excuses.

(04-09-2016 08:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:05 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 08:18 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  In the end the numbers really, really don't come close to telling the story.

If you saw every game you realize that (1) the talent level is much improved, (2) the basketball is exciting, (3) the students are back at Tudor, (4) Marcus, Conor and Egor were great to watch every game, (5) Marquez is an outstanding prospect with unlimited potential and (6) the program is obviously heading in the right direction.

Maybe - or maybe not. Over my years of following not only Rice sports but sports in general, I've heard plenty of coaches talk the talk that Rhodes has and promptly fail to walk the walk. The future can never be assumed.

Quote:I'll never forget the program that the athletic department and Jones School presented that featured a speech by Jeff Luhnow. He talked about the analytics the Astros used and stated, "we use the stats to rate players and determine their potential draft position and trade value, then we send a scout to see if they can play baseball."

This year's numbers are about as important.

The truth always lies in the numbers, two in particular. For Rhodes, those numbers are 24 career wins and 40 career losses as head coach at Rice. That .375 winning percentage is only 14th out of 24 head men's basketball coaches in Rice history (even Tommy Suitts had a better winning percentage than that!). I think even Luhnow would agree that, in the end, you are what your record says you are. While past results don't necessarily guarantee future results, they do tend to be broadly predictive. There's still time for Rhodes to walk the walk, but eventually reasons for not winning will turn into excuses.

Jonathan, it would appear from your comments above that you have not been to Tudor the past two seasons to see this team play under Rhoades, or followed his recruiting success. This is anything but your typical, historical Rice sports program. And to say that you are what your record is absurd given the empty cubbard that Rhoades inherited and was forced to play with his first year, and the loss of who were perceived to be his two best players just before this season. This is a VERY young and talented team that will be even more talented-- and finally with some depth-- heading into Rhoades' third year. It's also a very exciting style of play to watch, which has generated a dramatic increase in season ticket holders and overall attendance.

I'm as optimistic as you are about basketball Walt but he's a numbers guy and he's right. Next year is a big year for the basketball program. Time to start putting some wins on the board (and I think we will). But for now it's just a lot of potential.

I do think we have a shot at the NCAA tourney next year. I think we will be just as good as MTSU was this year and can make a run in the conference tourney. Will we? Who knows because 1 game eliminations are hard to predict and we won't get an at large bid. But I would put a bet down in Vegas right now that we make one of the postseason tournaments.