(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:02 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Who?

I believe there have been a few spirited debates with Antarius about it.

Nope. It was certain people talking to themselves and acting as though that's what I said.

I said 5-7 or 6-6 with the toilet bowl are both irrelevant and do nothing to improve the circumstances of Rice or Rice football. So bowl or no bowl, we remain increasingly irrelevant. So in a nutshell bowl or no bowl... No one cares. Neither move the needle.

So what you're saying is that, a 6-6 with a bowl is equal to 5-7 and a bowl game?

If so, doesn't the logic conclude that 6-6+bowl is NOT better than 5-7 with now bowl?

It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

A crappy bowl is exponentially better than no bowl, if you don't believe that then you are hopeless. We could go 13-0 and some on this board would complain we didn't win by enough! Some people were just born to complain......

(09-18-2016 05:46 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  A crappy bowl is exponentially better than no bowl, if you don't believe that then you are hopeless. We could go 13-0 and some on this board would complain we didn't win by enough! Some people were just born to complain......

And a quarter is worth more than a dime. You're still poor.

I'd love to see who's complaining if we go 13-0. We have never gotten close

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I believe there have been a few spirited debates with Antarius about it.

Nope. It was certain people talking to themselves and acting as though that's what I said.

I said 5-7 or 6-6 with the toilet bowl are both irrelevant and do nothing to improve the circumstances of Rice or Rice football. So bowl or no bowl, we remain increasingly irrelevant. So in a nutshell bowl or no bowl... No one cares. Neither move the needle.

So what you're saying is that, a 6-6 with a bowl is equal to 5-7 and a bowl game?

If so, doesn't the logic conclude that 6-6+bowl is NOT better than 5-7 with now bowl?

It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

(09-18-2016 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:46 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  A crappy bowl is exponentially better than no bowl, if you don't believe that then you are hopeless. We could go 13-0 and some on this board would complain we didn't win by enough! Some people were just born to complain......

And a quarter is worth more than a dime. You're still poor.

Sure, but to drag that logic out to the furthest extent, no result during a single season, outside of us running the table, is really worth anything on the macro-scale.

Let's say we went 10-2 this season before a bowl, but were still blown out by Stanford and Baylor, and lost the CUSA championship game. Would that have actually benefited us? We wouldn't have beaten anyone of note and wouldn't have won the conference championship. So I guess we'd have $5, which is still pretty poor.

(09-18-2016 06:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:46 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  A crappy bowl is exponentially better than no bowl, if you don't believe that then you are hopeless. We could go 13-0 and some on this board would complain we didn't win by enough! Some people were just born to complain......

And a quarter is worth more than a dime. You're still poor.

Sure, but to drag that logic out to the furthest extent, no result during a single season, outside of us running the table, is really worth anything on the macro-scale.

Let's say we went 10-2 this season before a bowl, but were still blown out by Stanford and Baylor, and lost the CUSA championship game. Would that have actually benefited us? We wouldn't have beaten anyone of note and wouldn't have won the conference championship. So I guess we'd have $5, which is still pretty poor.

Correct. And Owl69 has brought this up time and time again. We need to get to the point of being 8-0 consistently in conference. 10-2 would at least be a start.

(09-18-2016 05:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Nope. It was certain people talking to themselves and acting as though that's what I said.

I said 5-7 or 6-6 with the toilet bowl are both irrelevant and do nothing to improve the circumstances of Rice or Rice football. So bowl or no bowl, we remain increasingly irrelevant. So in a nutshell bowl or no bowl... No one cares. Neither move the needle.

So what you're saying is that, a 6-6 with a bowl is equal to 5-7 and a bowl game?

If so, doesn't the logic conclude that 6-6+bowl is NOT better than 5-7 with now bowl?

It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

I understand your point that empirical evidence, which shows us getting worse, means that the extra exposure and practices haven't, in the past two years, increased our talent or ability. But I have to imagine that recent results have much more to do with poor coaching hires, than anything else.

More practice is always better.

Yes the teams that beat Rice are a combined 9-1.

The nine victories over Rice (3), Miami OH, Liberty, Temple, UTEP, Northwestern St., and SMU. That list is not the 27 Yankees. Rice should have the same record against that schedule.

My statistical point is one around competitiveness vs. W's and L's. 0-3 is ok if you are/were competitive in losing. We have not been competitive on either side of the ball. That is the problem.

If Rice were to hire a new coach after this regular season, I would find it much more preferable for that coach to be taking over a team that went 6-6 and was headed to a minor bowl than a team that went 5-7 (or worse) and was sitting home. Assuming the coaching hire was good, then I think such a scenario could lead to macro-benefits.

(09-18-2016 07:22 PM)mrbig Wrote:  If Rice were to hire a new coach after this regular season, I would find it much more preferable for that coach to be taking over a team that went 6-6 and was headed to a minor bowl than a team that went 5-7 (or worse) and was sitting home. Assuming the coaching hire was good, then I think such a scenario could lead to macro-benefits.

Would we potentially be able to make the hire and have them start between the end of the regular season and the bowl game?

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  At what point, record-wise and bowl-wise, does it become relevant?

I repeat, IMO, bowl > no bowl.

I don't think those two comments are necessarily incompatible.

I agree that bowl > no bowl, but our bowls are increasingly irrelevant in the grand scheme.



MOre significantly.....

Bowls are generally supposed to be reserved for the top teams. it is only through 'league tie-ins' and current rules that a 6-6 team from CUSA or Sun Belt ranked 75+ who beat nobody is in a bowl while a 5-7 SEC team ranked 45 who played good teams well can stay home.

I expect things to increasingly go towards basketball or baseball where only the conf champ gets a bowl, and everyone else is 'at large'.... or at least to continue to consolidate power and money towards the big conferences. Having said that, this is actually our best shot at getting into p5 in that we won't compete with the top schools for recruits and will naturally gravitate towards the middle (at best) of the league.... while schools like UH, UTSA etc compete directly for recruits and can challenge 'the big boys'.

(09-18-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So what you're saying is that, a 6-6 with a bowl is equal to 5-7 and a bowl game?

If so, doesn't the logic conclude that 6-6+bowl is NOT better than 5-7 with now bowl?

It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

I understand your point that empirical evidence, which shows us getting worse, means that the extra exposure and practices haven't, in the past two years, increased our talent or ability. But I have to imagine that recent results have much more to do with poor coaching hires, than anything else.

More practice is always better.

and regardless of the relative worth assigned to bowls here, or our conference championship, which some here feel was more deserved by Marshall (i.e., they feel Marshall was better and only lost because it was played here in Houston) . . .

conversations with non-Rice NCAA fans, or TV commentators often come with the admission/acknowledgment that Rice has been to X bowls recently and won conference championship.

Does it impact the 'needle' with regard to going P5? Nope. Does it cause more people to show up at Rice Stadium? Nope. Nno more than people outside of Rice "like" to see Rice compete "The Rice Way" (i.e., with attention to academic standards and rules), without showing up to our games or wanting to let us in the P5.

But it still is a positive overall to the Rice brand outside of the people on the Parliament who claim it's meaningless splitting of hairs.

A heckuva lot better than the old acknowledgment that "Rice hasn't had a winning season in 29 years", or "Rice has not been to a bowl in over 40 years", or "Rice hasn't won an outright conference championship (when the best team wasn't on probation) in over 55 years)."

Everyone is certainly hopeful that our basketball team may be in a position soon to end the 45-year NCAA and conference championship drought. (and I believe we've never won and NCAA tourney game).

So yeah, there has been value in outside perception in going to bowls and winning conference championships.

The alternative would've been far worse.

(09-18-2016 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 02:43 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The thing I'll find hard to stomach is that next week, this board will be filled with positive spins on Bailiff's postgame comments after that game that: 'See, we're improving...we've got a great football team after all, etc.. etc...' Look, I WANT Rice to improve.

Do I have this straight? You want us to win. You want us to improve. But you don't want anybody to mention it if we do?

We have nowhere to go but up. If we do go up, I would expect people to say something. if we don't, I still expect them to say something.

Let me make sure I have your perspective straight: Do you really think beating North Texas this year is improving?

I'm not positive, but I don't think I recall anyone posting previously offseason that Rice would not win the North Texas game. FWIW, from my perspective, the idea of improvement is a bit closer to beating several teams you are not supposed to be likely to beat in a given season. So yes, I want us to improve, but I am not about to tout beating NTx, Prairie View and/or Charlotte this year as being any kind of improvement. That's like last season's opener against Wagner and all the praise in the week afterwards. Beating Wagner meant nothing--even Coach Bailiff himself stated in an interview this season that we didn't learn anything from that game. And at the moment, based on what we've seen so far (opponents' all-star caliber included) I'm not so sure that all three of those games are as no-brainier wins as I thought before the season started. We can read the preview of the game in the espn Bottom 10 as we'll both be ranked (as well as the CBS Bottom 25--hey, I guess we met JK's goal after all!)

(09-18-2016 07:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

I understand your point that empirical evidence, which shows us getting worse, means that the extra exposure and practices haven't, in the past two years, increased our talent or ability. But I have to imagine that recent results have much more to do with poor coaching hires, than anything else.

More practice is always better.

and regardless of the relative worth assigned to bowls here, or our conference championship, which some here feel was more deserved by Marshall (i.e., they feel Marshall was better and only lost because it was played here in Houston) . . .

conversations with non-Rice NCAA fans, or TV commentators often come with the admission/acknowledgment that Rice has been to X bowls recently and won conference championship.

Does it impact the 'needle' with regard to going P5? Nope. Does it cause more people to show up at Rice Stadium? Nope. Nno more than people outside of Rice "like" to see Rice compete "The Rice Way" (i.e., with attention to academic standards and rules), without showing up to our games or wanting to let us in the P5.

But it still is a positive overall to the Rice brand outside of the people on the Parliament who claim it's meaningless splitting of hairs.

A heckuva lot better than the old acknowledgment that "Rice hasn't had a winning season in 29 years", or "Rice has not been to a bowl in over 40 years", or "Rice hasn't won an outright conference championship (when the best team wasn't on probation) in over 55 years)."

Everyone is certainly hopeful that our basketball team may be in a position soon to end the 45-year NCAA and conference championship drought. (and I believe we've never won and NCAA tourney game).

So yeah, there has been value in outside perception in going to bowls and winning conference championships.

The alternative would've been far worse.

Rice is 2-5 in the NCAA basketball tournament.

(09-18-2016 07:53 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 07:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

I understand your point that empirical evidence, which shows us getting worse, means that the extra exposure and practices haven't, in the past two years, increased our talent or ability. But I have to imagine that recent results have much more to do with poor coaching hires, than anything else.

More practice is always better.

and regardless of the relative worth assigned to bowls here, or our conference championship, which some here feel was more deserved by Marshall (i.e., they feel Marshall was better and only lost because it was played here in Houston) . . .

conversations with non-Rice NCAA fans, or TV commentators often come with the admission/acknowledgment that Rice has been to X bowls recently and won conference championship.

Does it impact the 'needle' with regard to going P5? Nope. Does it cause more people to show up at Rice Stadium? Nope. Nno more than people outside of Rice "like" to see Rice compete "The Rice Way" (i.e., with attention to academic standards and rules), without showing up to our games or wanting to let us in the P5.

But it still is a positive overall to the Rice brand outside of the people on the Parliament who claim it's meaningless splitting of hairs.

A heckuva lot better than the old acknowledgment that "Rice hasn't had a winning season in 29 years", or "Rice has not been to a bowl in over 40 years", or "Rice hasn't won an outright conference championship (when the best team wasn't on probation) in over 55 years)."

Everyone is certainly hopeful that our basketball team may be in a position soon to end the 45-year NCAA and conference championship drought. (and I believe we've never won and NCAA tourney game).

So yeah, there has been value in outside perception in going to bowls and winning conference championships.

The alternative would've been far worse.

Rice is 2-5 in the NCAA basketball tournament.

oops, mea culpa. How long has it been since those wins?

(09-18-2016 07:50 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:58 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  It's like saying I have 25 cents vs a dime and saying I have lots of money. Yes one is better than the other but neither are worth much. So yes a quarter is worth more than a dime but that argument misses the broader picture.

Basically 5-7,6-6 with bowl both lead us to the Sunbelt 2.0. So this debate isn't important. And the result matters to no one beyond the Rice Faithful.

But that isn't what we were talking about. I agree that 6-6 with a crappy bowl this year is not an accomplishment because the overall impact of it is likely negligible on a macro-scale when compared to going 5-7 without a bowl. And that is because we will need to move mountains to affect that macro environment.

But I don't think there is a question about the effect on a micro-scale. On a micro-level we get more practices for players who will be with the program the next year, we do get more exposure, regardless of who we play, and it does at least let us pad the X bowl games in Y years stat that I have seen plenty of TV broadcasts play.

We ended up with the second lowest rated recruiting class. People are noting we seem to have talent and speed issues at many positions. This was after 3 bowls. I'm questioning even the micro impact. It's likely so micro that it's negligible to have any impact.

Is the 3 bowls In 4 years really making any difference?

I understand your point that empirical evidence, which shows us getting worse, means that the extra exposure and practices haven't, in the past two years, increased our talent or ability. But I have to imagine that recent results have much more to do with poor coaching hires, than anything else.

More practice is always better.

and regardless of the relative worth assigned to bowls here, or our conference championship, which some here feel was more deserved by Marshall (i.e., they feel Marshall was better and only lost because it was played here in Houston) . . .

conversations with non-Rice NCAA fans, or TV commentators often come with the admission/acknowledgment that Rice has been to X bowls recently and won conference championship.

Does it impact the 'needle' with regard to going P5? Nope. Does it cause more people to show up at Rice Stadium? Nope. Nno more than people outside of Rice "like" to see Rice compete "The Rice Way" (i.e., with attention to academic standards and rules), without showing up to our games or wanting to let us in the P5.

But it still is a positive overall to the Rice brand outside of the people on the Parliament who claim it's meaningless splitting of hairs.

A heckuva lot better than the old acknowledgment that "Rice hasn't had a winning season in 29 years", or "Rice has not been to a bowl in over 40 years", or "Rice hasn't won an outright conference championship (when the best team wasn't on probation) in over 55 years)."

Everyone is certainly hopeful that our basketball team may be in a position soon to end the 45-year NCAA and conference championship drought. (and I believe we've never won and NCAA tourney game).

So yeah, there has been value in outside perception in going to bowls and winning conference championships.

The alternative would've been far worse.

This is entirely a construct of your mind. Empirically you are unable to provide any evidence to support the position. Rice is still aww-that's-cute when it comes to football and no, your beloved bowls haven't changed that.

(09-18-2016 08:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 02:43 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The thing I'll find hard to stomach is that next week, this board will be filled with positive spins on Bailiff's postgame comments after that game that: 'See, we're improving...we've got a great football team after all, etc.. etc...' Look, I WANT Rice to improve.

Do I have this straight? You want us to win. You want us to improve. But you don't want anybody to mention it if we do?

We have nowhere to go but up. If we do go up, I would expect people to say something. if we don't, I still expect them to say something.

I have to disagree here. This can get worse, even while playing C-USA 3.0 teams. Just remember how Hatfield went from 4-7 (2002) to 5-7 (2003) to 3-8 (2004 - and they started that season 2-1) to 1-10 (2005). This can still fall off a cliff.

(09-18-2016 06:51 PM)owl40 Wrote:  Yes the teams that beat Rice are a combined 9-1.

The nine victories over Rice (3), Miami OH, Liberty, Temple, UTEP, Northwestern St., and SMU. That list is not the 27 Yankees. Rice should have the same record against that schedule.

My statistical point is one around competitiveness vs. W's and L's. 0-3 is ok if you are/were competitive in losing. We have not been competitive on either side of the ball. That is the problem.

Excellent post. Puts context where desperately needed.

We are 118 in Massy. 127 in Sagarin.

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What about 7-5 with the Toilet Bowl? Still irrelevant?

At what point, record-wise and bowl-wise, does it become relevant?

I repeat, IMO, bowl > no bowl.

To me it seems your posts suggest Rice would be better off not scheduling the likes of Baylor, Army, Stanford and just schedule teams like Wagner in the non-conference, so we can be more likely to go 7-5 and get to the goodwill bowl rather than 6-6 or 5-7. And to me that is raising the white flag of defeat and saying Rice admits it has no idea how to compete at its historic top level in Div I. Maybe you are saying something different, but it seems we have a better shot at going the suddenly magically spectacular 7-5 or 6-6 by scheduling Emory, Trinity, etc... I'd rather have beaten at least one of WKU, ARMY or a less than stellar looking Baylor to start this season. But a win's a win or as you say it seems some think otherwise.

(09-18-2016 08:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-18-2016 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What about 7-5 with the Toilet Bowl? Still irrelevant?

At what point, record-wise and bowl-wise, does it become relevant?

I repeat, IMO, bowl > no bowl.

To me it seems your posts suggest Rice would be better off not scheduling the likes of Baylor, Army, Stanford and just schedule teams like Wagner in the non-conference, so we can be more likely to go 7-5 and get to the goodwill bowl rather than 6-6 or 5-7. And to me that is raising the white flag of defeat and saying Rice admits it has no idea how to compete at its historic top level in Div I. Maybe you are saying something different, but it seems we have a better shot at going the suddenly magically spectacular 7-5 or 6-6 by scheduling Emory, Trinity, etc... I'd rather have beaten at least one of WKU, ARMY or a less than stellar looking Baylor to start this season. But a win's a win or as you say it seems some think otherwise.

I am saying something different. I am saying bowl > no bowl. I said nothing about scheduling, and have no idea where that came from. If you want my opinion on it, my opinion is that we need to upgrade our opponents, not downgrade, and we need to beat them.

I understand that there is not much difference between 7-5 and 6-6, but there is a world of difference between 6-6 and 5-7, and the difference is a bowl.

I understand Ant's characterization of both being irrelevant, as neither 7-5 or 6-6 is going to get us noticed in the football world, or attractive to a P5 conference, or attractive to a TV carrier. But to get from where we are to where we want to be will not happen in one swell foop, not even with a new coach, and one of the steps from here to there is making bowls. Not the only step, for sure, but a necessary one. I bet that next year, with a new coach, everybody here will be really happy to make a bowl with a 6-6 or 7-5 record, even if we don't beat anybody in the top 100. Would you be unhappy with us in a 6-6 bowl in 2017 with a new coach?