(05-18-2016 12:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  ]

Let's go back and play hypothetical... We beat Marshall in 2013 for the championship, then we beat Miss State in the Liberty... have an OUTRAGEOUS recruiting class and upset A&M and Notre Dame (or at least play them damn close) to start the next season... which probably also means we don't lose to ODU or maybe even not to Marshall or La Tech... we're getting top 25 votes... playing for the access bowl slot and all of a sudden, we're getting fans and money and attention. In other words, there has been a transformation. (I'd remind everyone that even after losing to A&M and Notre Dame AND ODU, we were STILL not mathematically eliminated from the access bowl)

The Liberty would be VERY high profile... Notre Dame as well which would make A&M even bigger...

but one could easily argue that the 'inflection point' (Sig win?) was the victory against Marshall that perhaps the fewest people watched or noticed.

Depending on how you define the word, would the Liberty be the 'signature'? Would Notre Dame? If you beat Marshall and Miss State and Notre Dame and A&M but then lose to ODU and Marshall and La Tech, were they upsets or transformation? I suppose that depends on whether we still blow out Fresno... and if we follow that up with another team arguably worthy of the top 25 or whether we are closer to 80 (or 100) and trying to figure out how to piece together 6 wins. If the latter, then those wins were just upsets, right? No Sig Win.

In your hypothetical, I would say marshall was the inflection point, MSU and ND both sigwins, but ONLY if the new level of performance is maintained. If not, then as you say, they were just upsets.

(05-19-2016 10:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So when people talk about 'big' wins, of course you can argue that beating Marshall was a big win, as was beating Frsno in the bowl and many others...

Ham, I don't quite get why beating Fresno in the bowl was a big win. Weren't they a middling team like we were, and what did it do for us? I guess it helped us develop a bowl streak, but as has been pointed out many times elsewhere, going to any bowl game nowadays is not the difficult accomplishment it used to be 20 years ago.

(05-19-2016 10:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So when people talk about 'big' wins, of course you can argue that beating Marshall was a big win, as was beating Frsno in the bowl and many others...

Ham, I don't quite get why beating Fresno in the bowl was a big win. Weren't they a middling team like we were, and what did it do for us? I guess it helped us develop a bowl streak, but as has been pointed out many times elsewhere, going to any bowl game nowadays is not the difficult accomplishment it used to be 20 years ago.

Fresno is better "name recognition" than almost anyone in CUSA according to a lot of posters on this board (I'd probably agree). That and we stomped them on national TV as the only game of the day while the commentators spent 3 quarters talking about how great Rice and Bailiff were.

(05-19-2016 10:33 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So when people talk about 'big' wins, of course you can argue that beating Marshall was a big win, as was beating Frsno in the bowl and many others...

Ham, I don't quite get why beating Fresno in the bowl was a big win. Weren't they a middling team like we were, and what did it do for us? I guess it helped us develop a bowl streak, but as has been pointed out many times elsewhere, going to any bowl game nowadays is not the difficult accomplishment it used to be 20 years ago.

Fresno is better "name recognition" than almost anyone in CUSA according to a lot of posters on this board (I'd probably agree). That and we stomped them on national TV as the only game of the day while the commentators spent 3 quarters talking about how great Rice and Bailiff were.

They also weren't very good.

Hence the whole point of how it CAN be argued that even that bowl game was a big win. Like most things we talk about, there are few black and white issues that actually get discussed on this board.

(05-19-2016 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:33 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So when people talk about 'big' wins, of course you can argue that beating Marshall was a big win, as was beating Frsno in the bowl and many others...

Ham, I don't quite get why beating Fresno in the bowl was a big win. Weren't they a middling team like we were, and what did it do for us? I guess it helped us develop a bowl streak, but as has been pointed out many times elsewhere, going to any bowl game nowadays is not the difficult accomplishment it used to be 20 years ago.

Fresno is better "name recognition" than almost anyone in CUSA according to a lot of posters on this board (I'd probably agree). That and we stomped them on national TV as the only game of the day while the commentators spent 3 quarters talking about how great Rice and Bailiff were.

They also weren't very good.

Hence the whole point of how it CAN be argued that even that bowl game was a big win. Like most things we talk about, there are few black and white issues that actually get discussed on this board.

agreeing with cr11. They weren't very good that year, but they have a pretty solid reputation within g5, we were the only game on at the time as I recall and they spent a whole lot of time giving huge positive press to Rice. I agree that 'BIG" is a relative term. It's certainly within Bailiff's top 5 or so.

More importantly (out here) is that Fresno is one of the more popular g5 school destinations for guys who would have preferred to attend Stanford or Cal or UCLA or USC... all highly respected (academically) schools... but for one reason or another didn't get the nod. Fresno really has a bit of a corner on that market for guys who want to stay fairly local and don't get a p5 invite. I'm not saying Fresno has a great academic reputation. Far from it. I'm just saying that they have (or get to choose from) a number of guys whom Rice would love to have, who might actually like Rice a whole lot.

ETA: Important to note that Rice has a pretty solid reputation (and lots of wealthy and/or young alums) up in the Bay Area and could probably do pretty well poaching guys whom Stanford or Cal doesn't need or have scholarships for in any number of sports who would have seen the Hawaii bowl.

Wasn't Fresno the originator of the "Anybody, anyplace, anytime" attitude that some here would like to see?

Except when it is Baylor on national TV, of course.

(05-19-2016 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wasn't Fresno the originator of the "Anybody, anyplace, anytime" attitude that some here would like to see?

Except when it is Baylor on national TV, of course.

Leaving aside the unnecessary snipe in this comment that adds no value, anybody, anyplace, anytime makes sense when you are capable of playing at a high level and trying to prove yourself.

We aren't even close to that level. Heck, we lost to UTSA last year with a 5th year senior at QB. When we can consistently beat the have-nots, then maybe we can anytime anyplace a have. Till then, we hope the beatdown isnt bad, collect the paycheck and use that money to try to dig ourselves out of the hole we have been slowly chipping into over the last 50 years.

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

For a G5 school, a signature win is a win against a respected P5 program that says the program is relevant and worth caring about.

Even after the success of Art Briles and even after Sumlin beat a ranked East Carolina and a ranked Tulsa in an eight-win 2008, Houston did not have a signature win until 2009 when we beat then #5 Oklahoma St and 9-4 Texas Tech.

Those wins captured the imagination of the fan base and other local football fans, and transformed the program. All of the sudden, we were relevant and the program had credibility. The next year, we sold out Robertson Stadium for the season.

This is why Tony Levine was fired. We had tasted relevance and passionate fans circa 2009-11, and felt it slipping away despite a couple of 8-5 records.

It's helpful if the signature win occurs early in a coach's tenure because of the potential it implies. If David Bailiff upsets Baylor in September during his 10th year on the job for his first signature win, it may have less impact than if Major Applewhite was coaching Rice and beat Baylor in his second year on the job.

(05-19-2016 11:07 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:33 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 10:15 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So when people talk about 'big' wins, of course you can argue that beating Marshall was a big win, as was beating Frsno in the bowl and many others...

Ham, I don't quite get why beating Fresno in the bowl was a big win. Weren't they a middling team like we were, and what did it do for us? I guess it helped us develop a bowl streak, but as has been pointed out many times elsewhere, going to any bowl game nowadays is not the difficult accomplishment it used to be 20 years ago.

Fresno is better "name recognition" than almost anyone in CUSA according to a lot of posters on this board (I'd probably agree). That and we stomped them on national TV as the only game of the day while the commentators spent 3 quarters talking about how great Rice and Bailiff were.

They also weren't very good.

Hence the whole point of how it CAN be argued that even that bowl game was a big win. Like most things we talk about, there are few black and white issues that actually get discussed on this board.

agreeing with cr11. They weren't very good that year, but they have a pretty solid reputation within g5, we were the only game on at the time as I recall and they spent a whole lot of time giving huge positive press to Rice. I agree that 'BIG" is a relative term. It's certainly within Bailiff's top 5 or so.

More importantly (out here) is that Fresno is one of the more popular g5 school destinations for guys who would have preferred to attend Stanford or Cal or UCLA or USC... all highly respected (academically) schools... but for one reason or another didn't get the nod. Fresno really has a bit of a corner on that market for guys who want to stay fairly local and don't get a p5 invite. I'm not saying Fresno has a great academic reputation. Far from it. I'm just saying that they have (or get to choose from) a number of guys whom Rice would love to have, who might actually like Rice a whole lot.

ETA: Important to note that Rice has a pretty solid reputation (and lots of wealthy and/or young alums) up in the Bay Area and could probably do pretty well poaching guys whom Stanford or Cal doesn't need or have scholarships for in any number of sports who would have seen the Hawaii bowl.

Ok, thank you for the explanation. Now that you refreshed my memory, I do recall the announcers praising Rice a bit during the later part of that game. And I forgot we had the time slot to ourselves.

(05-19-2016 03:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

For a G5 school, a signature win is a win against a respected P5 program that says the program is relevant and worth caring about.

Even after the success of Art Briles and even after Sumlin beat a ranked East Carolina and a ranked Tulsa in an eight-win 2008, Houston did not have a signature win until 2009 when we beat then #5 Oklahoma St and 9-4 Texas Tech.

Those wins captured the imagination of the fan base and other local football fans, and transformed the program. All of the sudden, we were relevant and the program had credibility. The next year, we sold out Robertson Stadium for the season.

This is why Tony Levine was fired. We had tasted relevance and passionate fans circa 2009-11, and felt it slipping away despite a couple of 8-5 records.

It's helpful if the signature win occurs early in a coach's tenure because of the potential it implies. If David Bailiff upsets Baylor in September during his 10th year on the job for his first signature win, it may have less impact than if Major Applewhite was coaching Rice and beat Baylor in his second year on the job.

Couldn't help noticing the bolded part.

(05-19-2016 11:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-19-2016 03:01 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

For a G5 school, a signature win is a win against a respected P5 program that says the program is relevant and worth caring about.

Even after the success of Art Briles and even after Sumlin beat a ranked East Carolina and a ranked Tulsa in an eight-win 2008, Houston did not have a signature win until 2009 when we beat then #5 Oklahoma St and 9-4 Texas Tech.

Those wins captured the imagination of the fan base and other local football fans, and transformed the program. All of the sudden, we were relevant and the program had credibility. The next year, we sold out Robertson Stadium for the season.

This is why Tony Levine was fired. We had tasted relevance and passionate fans circa 2009-11, and felt it slipping away despite a couple of 8-5 records.

It's helpful if the signature win occurs early in a coach's tenure because of the potential it implies. If David Bailiff upsets Baylor in September during his 10th year on the job for his first signature win, it may have less impact than if Major Applewhite was coaching Rice and beat Baylor in his second year on the job.

Couldn't help noticing the bolded part.

Also key in that phrase is slipping away - UH had already seen some great football produced at the school under Briles and then especially Sumlin. Had those two coaches not come immediately before, I don't think Levine is on such a short leash.

(05-20-2016 12:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also key in that phrase is slipping away - UH had already seen some great football produced at the school under Briles and then especially Sumlin. Had those two coaches not come immediately before, I don't think Levine is on such a short leash.

It's just kinda tough watching a school across town that seems to collectively want it more this past decade. Though we've parsed the differences endlessly their standards in this one area appear to be much higher than ours, and they seem less willing to settle, at least not without a fight.

(05-20-2016 12:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It's just kinda tough watching a school across town that seems to collectively want it more this past decade. Though we've parsed the differences endlessly their standards in this one area appear to be much higher than ours, and they seem less willing to settle, at least not without a fight.

Well said.

(05-20-2016 12:33 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It's just kinda tough watching a school across town that seems to collectively want it more this past decade. Though we've parsed the differences endlessly their standards in this one area appear to be much higher than ours, and they seem less willing to settle, at least not without a fight.

Well said.

Thank you, OCO. I guess I have my moments.

(05-20-2016 12:33 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  It's just kinda tough watching a school across town that seems to collectively want it more this past decade. Though we've parsed the differences endlessly their standards in this one area appear to be much higher than ours, and they seem less willing to settle, at least not without a fight.

Well said.

I agree!

(05-20-2016 12:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-20-2016 12:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Also key in that phrase is slipping away - UH had already seen some great football produced at the school under Briles and then especially Sumlin. Had those two coaches not come immediately before, I don't think Levine is on such a short leash.

It's just kinda tough watching a school across town that seems to collectively want it more this past decade. Though we've parsed the differences endlessly their standards in this one area appear to be much higher than ours, and they seem less willing to settle, at least not without a fight.

They have done a much better job, from the top down, managing their football program and putting in the necessary work to let them succeed. Note though that their expectations did not start off as high as they were when they fired Levine. Briles went 7-6, 3-8, and 6-6 in his first three seasons, which is worse than Levine's 20-17 record. The difference in Briles and Levine is that when Briles was there, UH had no recently seen success so the admin was more willing to give him time to prove himself. With Levine, they knew they could compete at a very high level and were expecting to do so. Had UH had the same level of expectations when Briles was finished with his third year, they would almost certainly not be in the same situation they are in today.

I agree that it is tough watching UH seem to make all the right decisions while we continue to struggle (at least on our football coaching decisions), but these situations are much more nuanced than just UH having higher expectations for the past decade or so.

Posted this on the CUSA board, but the ideas also belong here:

(05-26-2016 02:12 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:06 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  This is very good. We need less bowl games like the AZ bowl.

About 10 bowl games need to be completely dropped (maybe even 15). Then restore more p5 vs g5 match ups. At least make them a real reward by making the games somewhat meaningful again. Who really cares about playing one more SBC, MWC or MAC team anyway?

Or AAC team for that matter.

Yeah, we should all just stay home instead of playing bowl games when eligible. Makes sense to me. P5 vs P5 is now the norm. Does anyone know of a way to force a change in that?

Yes, most of us should stay at home. Tell me exactly how two 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams playing each other in a meaningless lower tier bowl advances their programs vs the P5s? Those kind of middling bowls give exposure: they expose and reinforce that these schools

are not very good or desirable,
that they are less than the big time programs,
and they help establish further separation.

Going to those bowl games as a 6-6 or 7-5 (or last year, 5-7) G5 only hurts those programs in particular and G5s in general, if you really think about it.

Yes, it would be painful. But if only the very best G5 teams went to bowl, and only played P5 schools, they would have a much better chance of turning perceptions back around. Those games would mean something again.

There are a handful of G5-P5 matchup bowls still left. I'd just play those. Tell ESPN to go take a flying leap on the rest. Let them match two 3-9 or 2-8 P5 teams in those crap bowls instead. Purdue vs Kansas in the St. Petersburg Bowl anyone? I thought not. It will only make them look ridiculous, while you only see good G5 teams like UH and a few others were last year making an impact statement.

Sure, this would "hurt" Rice short term, but the truth is Rice football pretty much sucks right now, and when it has been 'good" in the last 10 years, it still sucks comparatively. That does nothing to help Rice football and change where we are as a program. It is a lie that makes us be able to forget about the truth. If we do this, it would begin to remove the facade of P5 dominance top to bottom. People would see there are better G5 teams than many of the P5s. It is not like those games are moneymakers for them, and most are breakevens at best and more likely money-losers for the G5 schools that go.

Of the good G5 teams, the few top ones, like UH last year, WKU, Boise and a couple of others, those are the schools that can play and the top games that can still draw general college fan interest, and establish some respect.

Then, the G5s should aspire to become the top G5 teams and help raise the bar of respectability again.

It's not like G5's are really making more money the way things have gone these last 10 years. Most all of them are losing more money on athletics, and football in particular, than ever before. What we are doing now by sending almost everyone with a pulse to a made-up bowl game is not working, it is dragging everyone further down. That is how it was designed. So, the answer is refuse to abide. Only play the top 5 to 8 g5 teams in bowl games and insist only playing P5s. About half will be upset wins, and in the next 10 years respectability and clout will start to return. Not to everyone. But really, did a 5-7 Rice team that beat no one of note really deserve a bowl game a s a reward for a losing season and years of mediocrity? The answer is no. Rice of all G5 schools should not be willing to promote its own mediocrity when that is the opposite of what the university stands for academically.

I'd be willing for Rice to self impose that no bowl invitations be accepted unless our record is 8-4 minimum each season. Some fans would scream (all 5 of them) but when we DID go to a bowl game, it would be way more meaningful, and we might have a way better chance of actually competing against teams who if we won a few of those in several consecutive years, would actually change the public perception.

Similar for any other G5 school that decided to set minimum standards of achievement on the gridiron for rewards rather than the current race to the bottom mentality that is hurting all of us.

It is counter-intuitive, but it might work a lot better than what we are doing now.

(05-26-2016 05:02 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Posted this on the CUSA board, but the ideas also belong here:

(05-26-2016 02:12 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:06 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  This is very good. We need less bowl games like the AZ bowl.

About 10 bowl games need to be completely dropped (maybe even 15). Then restore more p5 vs g5 match ups. At least make them a real reward by making the games somewhat meaningful again. Who really cares about playing one more SBC, MWC or MAC team anyway?

Or AAC team for that matter.

Yeah, we should all just stay home instead of playing bowl games when eligible. Makes sense to me. P5 vs P5 is now the norm. Does anyone know of a way to force a change in that?

Yes, most of us should stay at home. Tell me exactly how two 6-6 or 7-5 G5 teams playing each other in a meaningless lower tier bowl advances their programs vs the P5s? Those kind of middling bowls give exposure: they expose and reinforce that these schools

are not very good or desirable,
that they are less than the big time programs,
and they help establish further separation.

Going to those bowl games as a 6-6 or 7-5 (or last year, 5-7) G5 only hurts those programs in particular and G5s in general, if you really think about it.

Yes, it would be painful. But if only the very best G5 teams went to bowl, and only played P5 schools, they would have a much better chance of turning perceptions back around. Those games would mean something again.

There are a handful of G5-P5 matchup bowls still left. I'd just play those. Tell ESPN to go take a flying leap on the rest. Let them match two 3-9 or 2-8 P5 teams in those crap bowls instead. Purdue vs Kansas in the St. Petersburg Bowl anyone? I thought not. It will only make them look ridiculous, while you only see good G5 teams like UH and a few others were last year making an impact statement.

Sure, this would "hurt" Rice short term, but the truth is Rice football pretty much sucks right now, and when it has been 'good" in the last 10 years, it still sucks comparatively. That does nothing to help Rice football and change where we are as a program. It is a lie that makes us be able to forget about the truth. If we do this, it would begin to remove the facade of P5 dominance top to bottom. People would see there are better G5 teams than many of the P5s. It is not like those games are moneymakers for them, and most are breakevens at best and more likely money-losers for the G5 schools that go.

Of the good G5 teams, the few top ones, like UH last year, WKU, Boise and a couple of others, those are the schools that can play and the top games that can still draw general college fan interest, and establish some respect.

Then, the G5s should aspire to become the top G5 teams and help raise the bar of respectability again.

It's not like G5's are really making more money the way things have gone these last 10 years. Most all of them are losing more money on athletics, and football in particular, than ever before. What we are doing now by sending almost everyone with a pulse to a made-up bowl game is not working, it is dragging everyone further down. That is how it was designed. So, the answer is refuse to abide. Only play the top 5 to 8 g5 teams in bowl games and insist only playing P5s. About half will be upset wins, and in the next 10 years respectability and clout will start to return. Not to everyone. But really, did a 5-7 Rice team that beat no one of note really deserve a bowl game a s a reward for a losing season and years of mediocrity? The answer is no. Rice of all G5 schools should not be willing to promote its own mediocrity when that is the opposite of what the university stands for academically.

I'd be willing for Rice to self impose that no bowl invitations be accepted unless our record is 8-4 minimum each season. Some fans would scream (all 5 of them) but when we DID go to a bowl game, it would be way more meaningful, and we might have a way better chance of actually competing against teams who if we won a few of those in several consecutive years, would actually change the public perception.

Similar for any other G5 school that decided to set minimum standards of achievement on the gridiron for rewards rather than the current race to the bottom mentality that is hurting all of us.

It is counter-intuitive, but it might work a lot better than what we are doing now.

I'm with you about the best G5 schools playing the P5-G5 bowls, but the problem is, the P5 don't want to lose. That's why they have removed most of the crossover matchups. Ever since OU, Boise has been getting dodged by the marquee P5 schools for a decade. Nobody really wants to see two 7-5 P5 schools go at it either, but that's what they have for most of their other bowls now.

You are right mediocre G5-G5 is diluting the bowl games and hurting the whole NCAA brand, and the schools make no money on those bowls but maybe the sponsors and organizers still profit?

two 7-5 p5 teams in a bowl still appeals to A couple hundred thousand alums and fans for those schools, which is far more than will care about two 7-5 g-5 schools.... There's also a LITTLE cross over to 'ACC vs SEC' fans, which because those are all big state schools, are also a large number of fans with MODEST interest... which is why those games are on when they are.

I'm not in favor of dropping the lower bowls because that just gives p5 ANOTHER advantage... and it IS valuable to the cities and sponsors of those bowls....

but we need to stop pretending like a bowl is a bowl (some of us anyway). It says something that our BIGGEST bowl game has been against a 0.500 SEC team, and we were beaten like a rented mule. I understand that they were likely better than their record, but that is the level of team that 'the best' of CUSA is matched against. A 0.500 SEC team. Outside of the access bowl (which only 1 g5 team gets) and the bowl for the conference champion, everything else is a 'community outreach bowl' and not something that 'the public at large' really cares about.

There have been several in the years since, but last night, Duke had a Signature Win, 28-7 over a stunned, highly-ranked and ACC favorite Clemson. Sometimes, preparation meets opportunity. Duke stayed close, Clemson played like crap, and in the end, things started going the Dukie's way.

It looked like we perhaps had a similar opportunity against Texas this past weekend, as the game was close in 1st half, and Texas was playing like crap. But we weren't as prepared, didn't seem to have the offensive plays set up to take advantage, we gave Texas a coupla' gimme interceptions that gave them the momentum they lacked to break the game open, and while Duke seemed to have the kind of playmaking QB and skill players to make this happen, on paper it looked like we might have, but in execution it seems we did not. Maybe next time with our next new Head Coach?