C-USA

West

64. Louisiana Tech (5-3)
74. Southern Miss (4-3)
83. North Texas (4-3)
99. UTSA (3-4)
119. RICE (1-6)
121. UTEP (2-5)

East

59. Western Kentucky (5-3)
63. Middle Tennessee (5-2)
91. Old Dominion (4-3)
110. Florida Int'l (3-5)
112. Marshall (2-5)
115. Charlotte (3-5)
127. Florida Atlantic (1-6)

OTHERS:

11. Baylor (6-0)
40. Stanford (4-3)
86. Army (4-3)

How is UTEP ranked below Rice with 2 wins over FBS schools including one to which Rice lost, while Rice's only win is over a not highly ranked FCS team?

I am not 100% qualified to answer that, but I think it is because on the whole, our losses are to better teams.

(10-23-2016 05:51 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  I am not 100% qualified to answer that, but I think it is because on the whole, our losses are to better teams.

Agree. We very nearly beat the #83 and #99 teams

(10-23-2016 05:51 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  I am not 100% qualified to answer that, but I think it is because on the whole, our losses are to better teams.

Scoring margin (and game location probably) matters too. A 1pt loss on the road is far better than a 42 pt home loss.

Massey still rates us 126.

We may drop out of First Place in the BOTTOM 10!! The cost of [limited] success.

We may have won but we dropped 3 spots in Sagarin. Now ranked 146

(10-23-2016 08:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Massey still rates us 126.

I see 192.

http://www.mratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=286577

(10-24-2016 12:14 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 08:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Massey still rates us 126.

I see 192.

http://www.mratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=286577

That's the ranking among all college football teams. Essentially, it's saying that there are 66 teams not in Division I FBS that are better than Rice. This includes NCAA Division I FCS, Division II and Division III, NAIA, NJCAA, CCCAA, and CIS teams. In Massey's rankings, we're behind 47 FCS, 7 Division II, 2 NJCAA, 4 CCCAA, and 6 CIS teams. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about mixing some of these together, especially the junior colleges (NJCAA and CCCAA) and CIS (Canadian) teams since there's no interconnectivity between them, but those are the rankings.

(10-24-2016 11:57 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:14 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 08:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Massey still rates us 126.

I see 192.
http://www.mratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=286577

That's the ranking among all college football teams. Essentially, it's saying that there are 66 teams not in Division I FBS that are better than Rice. This includes NCAA Division I FCS, Division II and Division III, NAIA, NJCAA, CCCAA, and CIS teams. In Massey's rankings, we're behind 47 FCS, 7 Division II, 2 NJCAA, 4 CCCAA, and 6 CIS teams. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about mixing some of these together, especially the junior colleges (NJCAA and CCCAA) and CIS (Canadian) teams since there's no interconnectivity between them, but those are the rankings.

Agree. I don't see how you can have meaningful rankings without interconnectivity. I wonder even where there is limited interconnectivity.

But I wouldn't be surprised if we would lose to some of them if we played.

(10-25-2016 02:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 11:57 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(10-24-2016 12:14 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-23-2016 08:16 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Massey still rates us 126.

I see 192.
http://www.mratings.com/team.php?t=6535&s=286577

That's the ranking among all college football teams. Essentially, it's saying that there are 66 teams not in Division I FBS that are better than Rice. This includes NCAA Division I FCS, Division II and Division III, NAIA, NJCAA, CCCAA, and CIS teams. In Massey's rankings, we're behind 47 FCS, 7 Division II, 2 NJCAA, 4 CCCAA, and 6 CIS teams. Personally, I'm a bit dubious about mixing some of these together, especially the junior colleges (NJCAA and CCCAA) and CIS (Canadian) teams since there's no interconnectivity between them, but those are the rankings.

Agree. I don't see how you can have meaningful rankings without interconnectivity. I wonder even where there is limited interconnectivity.

But I wouldn't be surprised if we would lose to some of them if we played.

It's good thing that you don't rank 12-man and 6-man high school teams along with us.

I like what Bailiff "gets about Rice" but my concern is not for him, but about the men on the team. Shouldn't they, as student/athletes, at Rice, receive the BEST that we can offer?