(10-04-2016 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 09:07 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice maintains the #1 spot on the ESPN bottom 10

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

Certainly something to be [NOT] proud of.....

DROP FOOTBALL; it's a WASTE! And an EMBARASSMENT.....

So with UTSA, PVAMU, FAU and UTEP left on the home schedule with the latter being on the glorious Saturday before thanksgiving slot, I gotta feel really sorry for the marketing/revenue team (who are making great strides, but sadly are faced with task of Sisyphus). What chance do you think that cumulative in the stadium attendance for the rest of the year is greater than 30,000? PVAMU had 15k for their home game vs TSU, but we may be relying on them to bolster attendance. Their band will likely be terrific.

(10-04-2016 03:15 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  PVAMU had 15k for their home game vs TSU, but we may be relying on them to bolster attendance. Their band will likely be terrific.

Unfortunately, as the game vs. PVAMU is Rice's HC game, the PVAMU band will have only a limited time slot during halftime, 6 minutes I believe Grungy said.

I would be willing to forego having the large checks marched out on the field to make more time for the PVAMU band at halftime. Can Rice not do the checks pre-game?

(10-04-2016 03:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I would be willing to forego having the large checks marched out on the field to make more time for the PVAMU band at halftime. Can Rice not do the checks pre-game?

Perhaps Rice can do one "large check" during each break after Rice scores. If Rice doesn't score, then the alumni whose "large check" has not yet been presented get a refund.

to hell with the large checks. Set the PVAMU band free!!!!!!!

(10-04-2016 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 09:07 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice maintains the #1 spot on the ESPN bottom 10

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

But we are last on this list:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...andidates/

(10-04-2016 03:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 03:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I would be willing to forego having the large checks marched out on the field to make more time for the PVAMU band at halftime. Can Rice not do the checks pre-game?

Perhaps Rice can do one "large check" during each break after Rice scores. If Rice doesn't score, then the alumni whose "large check" has not yet been presented get a refund.

Now that's some Unconventional Wisdom!

(10-04-2016 03:42 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 03:15 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  PVAMU had 15k for their home game vs TSU, but we may be relying on them to bolster attendance. Their band will likely be terrific.

Unfortunately, as the game vs. PVAMU is Rice's HC game, the PVAMU band will have only a limited time slot during halftime, 6 minutes I believe Grungy said.

I would be willing to forego having the large checks marched out on the field to make more time for the PVAMU band at halftime. Can Rice not do the checks pre-game?

At least Rice isn't doing anything like Vanderbilt tried to pull - which was actually cancelling the Vanderbilt band performance at Homecoming (and Band Parent weekend) halftime, while allowing the visiting band to perform a short set around the rest of Homecoming festivities.

https://www.collegemarching.com/content/...vanderbilt
HT: BHS on Facebook Group "Let's be honest: we can't get a million fans for Rice University."

At least Vanderbilt relented, but only after an uproar and not because somebody in a position of responsibility realized how stupid it was to begin with.

I agree. It's my 10th reunion, I donated, and I don't give a damn on how much we raised. Full band shows, please.

(10-04-2016 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 08:38 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  But, you are overlooking the fact that Rice's schedule, thus far, has been very tough. While the loss to North Texas (in double overtime) was a bad result, the combined record of our other opponents is 15-4, with 3 of those 4 games on the road.

While the schedule (outside of Louisiana Tech and Stanford) does get easier, it's not as if Rice should be better than 1-4.

'should be' based on what?
Our losses are to
17. Baylor (38-10)
55. Southern Miss (44-28)
66. Army (31-14)
76. Western Kentucky (46-14)
104. North Texas (42-35 dot)

You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't expect to be competitive with teams ranked around #86 (La Tech) and certainly not WKU?

If you're saying 'that's where we are' no problem. If you're saying that's what we should expect, I disagree.

Nah, he didn't say anything about competitiveness. He's just saying that before the season started, we were expected to be 1-4 or 2-3 at this point...

(10-05-2016 08:24 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-04-2016 08:38 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  But, you are overlooking the fact that Rice's schedule, thus far, has been very tough. While the loss to North Texas (in double overtime) was a bad result, the combined record of our other opponents is 15-4, with 3 of those 4 games on the road.

While the schedule (outside of Louisiana Tech and Stanford) does get easier, it's not as if Rice should be better than 1-4.

'should be' based on what?
Our losses are to
17. Baylor (38-10)
55. Southern Miss (44-28)
66. Army (31-14)
76. Western Kentucky (46-14)
104. North Texas (42-35 dot)

You're essentially arguing that we shouldn't expect to be competitive with teams ranked around #86 (La Tech) and certainly not WKU?

If you're saying 'that's where we are' no problem. If you're saying that's what we should expect, I disagree.

Nah, he didn't say anything about competitiveness. He's just saying that before the season started, we were expected to be 1-4 or 2-3 at this point...

Let me say it differently...

Just using the rankings, being 2-3 puts us between 66 and 76
being 1-4 puts us between 76-104.

If we had won in overtime rather than lost, that still puts us closer to 104 than 76 in that we lost badly to 76...

but we lost, which puts us between 105 and 128.

He said 'it's not as if we should be better than 1-4.... meaning between 76 and 104. If he means 'that's where we are' (somewhere between 76 and 128, between 1-4 and 0-5, the bottom third to tenth of football) then that is just the facts.

If he means that's where our expectations should be, then I disagree.

Being 3-2, much less 2-3 still wouldn't put us in the top half and being 4-1 only barely does putting us in the top 50.

We SHOULD be 4-1, maybe 3-2 with a little luck or 2-3 if we're unlucky... instead we're 0-5 and not expecting to be better than 1-4? Something very wrong with that

FWIW, all of Rice's remaining FBS games except La Tech are against offenses now ranked 98th or worse in FBS. Rice is #116 of 128 FBS teams in offense and of the 12 FBS teams actually worse in offense than Rice, we get to play three of them and then add FCS team on top of that. So when DB says in USM post game presser that we are about to get on a roll, you know why. Nothing like playing bad offensive football teams to help you get well.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/21/p3

Rice moved up one spot to 125 in Massey

(10-09-2016 01:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice moved up one spot to 125 in Massey

Best performance of the year.

(10-09-2016 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 01:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice moved up one spot to 125 in Massey

Best performance of the year.

Have we valley-ed?

(10-09-2016 01:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice moved up one spot to 125 in Massey

[JOSHUA] Sometimes the best move is not to play [/JOSHUA]

Sent from my SM-G920V using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-09-2016 05:30 AM)owl40 Wrote:  FWIW, all of Rice's remaining FBS games except La Tech are against offenses now ranked 98th or worse in FBS. Rice is #116 of 128 FBS teams in offense and of the 12 FBS teams actually worse in offense than Rice, we get to play three of them and then add FCS team on top of that. So when DB says in USM post game presser that we are about to get on a roll, you know why. Nothing like playing bad offensive football teams to help you get well.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/21/p3

You've left out Stanford.

(10-10-2016 02:52 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 05:30 AM)owl40 Wrote:  FWIW, all of Rice's remaining FBS games except La Tech are against offenses now ranked 98th or worse in FBS. Rice is #116 of 128 FBS teams in offense and of the 12 FBS teams actually worse in offense than Rice, we get to play three of them and then add FCS team on top of that. So when DB says in USM post game presser that we are about to get on a roll, you know why. Nothing like playing bad offensive football teams to help you get well.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/21/p3

You've left out Stanford.

Stanford is actually worse than Rice in offense. Expect that to change against us but interesting how inept they have been to date.

We are not going to beat Stanford but over past 10-years we have a pattern of playing better against teams with poor QB play vs. good QB play regardless of the opponents overall strength. So I actually think we could be more competitive than the experts think.

(10-09-2016 02:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2016 01:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Rice moved up one spot to 125 in Massey

Best performance of the year.

At least we beat Off well