(12-07-2016 07:51 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 07:46 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 07:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 05:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  This could be a winnable game. I was not impressed by Stanford other than McCaffrey, their other speedy RB (guessing he returns), and their secondary. Their WR's were not impressive at all, and that is the key to destroying the Rice defense. While they ran for a lot of yards, their O-line wasn't exactly dominating our D-line, in fact I though the entire front 7 held its own. With a healthier D-line than what we fielded the final game of the season (Thompson and Abrecrumbia hopefully healthy to start the year), and Ellerbee returning, their run heavy offense plays into the strength of our D. Our O-line held up OK against their defensive line, Tyner had plenty of time to pass and there were some holes for the RB's. It was their secondary that dominated our WR's and the game. If the Rice offense can make a big improvement (obviously a big "if") we have a chance to make it a competitive game.

Despite their very good profile, Stanford is not as bad a match up for Rice as say, La Tech, WKU, UH, and those schools that have wide open pass offenses with limitless speedsters at WR. Of course, we'll need huge improvement out of the QB position and special teams, but again, it's not as bad a match up as it may seem.

I much prefer if this game were at Rice Stadium, but as always we seem to sell out our home field advantage in these home and away series against good P5 programs like Texas or Stanford. Guess we don't have a choice but to take the money. It's a good idea and a good opportunity for the players and for Rice, I just think we're giving up the home field advantage that could make the difference between a competitive and a non-competitive game, assuming we improve, against a team like Stanford.

Can the rest of us get some of that Kool-Aid?

Same Kool-Aid that caused many on this board to predict a 6-, 7- or 8- win season this past year when based soley on returning, proven talent and schedule it was very heard to imagine us being better than 5-7 (absolute best case scenario, IMO).

Is it a different brand than the Omaha kool-aid?

Vancouver is up there too.

(12-07-2016 09:00 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Vancouver is up there too.

From a weather perspective it doesn't compare, and while the aesthetics are great, IMO, they pale next to Sydney.

(12-07-2016 09:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:00 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Vancouver is up there too.

they pale

Beats skin cancer, though

(12-07-2016 09:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:00 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Vancouver is up there too.

From a weather perspective it doesn't compare, and while the aesthetics are great, IMO, they pale next to Sydney.

I wouldn't say Vancouver pales next to Sydney, particularly not in aesthetics. I'd say it's a strong #2. But the people are what makes Sydney great. They are just unequaled anywhere I've been.

(12-07-2016 08:43 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 08:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 08:19 PM)Jacknife Wrote:  the greatest city on earth

Yes, it is.

Agreed.

I heartily agree as well.

(12-07-2016 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:00 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Vancouver is up there too.

From a weather perspective it doesn't compare, and while the aesthetics are great, IMO, they pale next to Sydney.

I wouldn't say Vancouver pales next to Sydney, particularly not in aesthetics. I'd say it's a strong #2. But the people are what makes Sydney great. They are just unequaled anywhere I've been.

I'm not sure I'd put Vancouver ahead of Cape Town, but it's certainly up there.

(12-07-2016 10:58 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 09:00 PM)seniorowl Wrote:  Vancouver is up there too.

From a weather perspective it doesn't compare, and while the aesthetics are great, IMO, they pale next to Sydney.

I wouldn't say Vancouver pales next to Sydney, particularly not in aesthetics. I'd say it's a strong #2. But the people are what makes Sydney great. They are just unequaled anywhere I've been.

I'm not sure I'd put Vancouver ahead of Cape Town, but it's certainly up there.

I would, but not by much. That's a pretty strong trio.

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

(12-08-2016 08:59 AM)mbrindley Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

Yeah, but Stanford has given fans a heads-up. Rice has not.

(12-08-2016 09:14 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:59 AM)mbrindley Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

Yeah, but Stanford has given fans a heads-up. Rice has not.

Says who? Apparently there are big donors who don't post on this board who wanted to keep Bailiff. Maybe they know... clearly they aren't posting on here where 99.9% of people wanted Bailiff gone.

(12-08-2016 09:17 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:14 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:59 AM)mbrindley Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

Yeah, but Stanford has given fans a heads-up. Rice has not.

Says who? Apparently there are big donors who don't post on this board who wanted to keep Bailiff. Maybe they know... clearly they aren't posting on here where 99.9% of people wanted Bailiff gone.

The Stanford football banquet is not limitted to only big donors. (BTW, define "big"?) Rather, attendees included any season ticketholder who also contributes to Stanford's equivalent to our Owl Club.

(12-08-2016 09:17 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:14 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:59 AM)mbrindley Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

Yeah, but Stanford has given fans a heads-up. Rice has not.

Says who? Apparently there are big donors who don't post on this board who wanted to keep Bailiff. Maybe they know... clearly they aren't posting on here where 99.9% of people wanted Bailiff gone.

Has Stanford said anything other than announcing it at the banquet? I wouldn't quite call saying something at the team banquet giving the fans a heads up.

Googling "stanford rice sydney football 2017" gives me nothing of interest except this board. Hard to believe it wouldn't be mentioned on their boards or tweets somewhere. I'm losing faith in this rumor.

(12-08-2016 09:44 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  Googling "stanford rice sydney football 2017" gives me nothing of interest except this board. Hard to believe it wouldn't be mentioned on their boards or tweets somewhere. I'm losing faith in this rumor.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=16232.0

(12-08-2016 09:29 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:17 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 09:14 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:59 AM)mbrindley Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 04:41 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  I see both sides of the argument and given the money we stand to get, the quality of Rice football currently, and the ticket buying push back it makes sense to play in Sydney. However, once again it would be nice if we would hear the announcement and details from our AD instead of from other sources....sort of like the news of the retention of Bailiff. Mark Berman gave us the news not our AD.

I don't think either AD can officially say anything yet. Based on the Stanford message board, this was communicated during their football banquet and is still pending approval by the NCAA. If true, then no announcement is likely until the final approvals come down from the NCAA. Seems a bit unfair to criticize either AD at this point for not announcing the changes. No reporter has provided the scoop either, but I would expect that to happen before any official announcement similar to every other sporting news story these days.

Yeah, but Stanford has given fans a heads-up. Rice has not.

Says who? Apparently there are big donors who don't post on this board who wanted to keep Bailiff. Maybe they know... clearly they aren't posting on here where 99.9% of people wanted Bailiff gone.

The Stanford football banquet is not limitted to only big donors. (BTW, define "big"?) Rather, attendees included any season ticketholder who also contributes to Stanford's equivalent to our Owl Club.

Well have we had any banquets for donors since the end of the season? I'm just saying that just because no one on this board knows doesn't mean some Rice donors haven't been told.

I don't think the banquet will take place until April, as per usual.

(12-07-2016 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But the people are what makes Sydney great. They are just unequaled anywhere I've been.

I have good friends from Melbourne who would strenuously disagree. :-)

Never having been to either, I'm not taking a position.

(12-07-2016 05:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  This could be a winnable game. I was not impressed by Stanford other than McCaffrey, their other speedy RB (guessing he returns), and their secondary. Their WR's were not impressive at all, and that is the key to destroying the Rice defense. While they ran for a lot of yards, their O-line wasn't exactly dominating our D-line, in fact I though the entire front 7 held its own. With a healthier D-line than what we fielded the final game of the season (Thompson and Abrecrumbia hopefully healthy to start the year), and Ellerbee returning, their run heavy offense plays into the strength of our D. Our O-line held up OK against their defensive line, Tyner had plenty of time to pass and there were some holes for the RB's. It was their secondary that dominated our WR's and the game. If the Rice offense can make a big improvement (obviously a big "if") we have a chance to make it a competitive game.

Despite their very good profile, Stanford is not as bad a match up for Rice as say, La Tech, WKU, UH, and those schools that have wide open pass offenses with limitless speedsters at WR. Of course, we'll need huge improvement out of the QB position and special teams, but again, it's not as bad a match up as it may seem.

I much prefer if this game were at Rice Stadium, but as always we seem to sell out our home field advantage in these home and away series against good P5 programs like Texas or Stanford. Guess we don't have a choice but to take the money. It's a good idea and a good opportunity for the players and for Rice, I just think we're giving up the home field advantage that could make the difference between a competitive and a non-competitive game, assuming we improve, against a team like Stanford.

I do share your enthusiasm.

However, having been at the game, their receivers were pretty good. Their running game was pretty good too. Stanford pretty much controlled the game with methodical runs and opportune pass plays. At one point just before half, the TOP was almost 4-1 Stanford.

Their secondary was good but beatable. Granted, Rice didn't get a first down until the second quarter and didn't complete a pass until the 8th attempt. Rice's pass completion percentage hovered between 18-30% for the first 3 quarters. But I can see how this would be the key to beating Stanford.

Hypothetically, if you really want to beat them, I'm guessing the key would be spreading the ball around and moving the TE around. Maybe a lot of tripps with the TE split out by himself and on the tripps side or in the slot. Stanford pressed 3 of the 4 receivers and usually left the outside tripps receiver with a cushion so no reason to think they won't do the same. I am thinking maybe 15-20 yards over the middle with some layering on the periphery. Maybe alternate the layering over the middle with the 2 slot receivers and clearing with the SE. The backside receiver is isolated in essentially press man which could make for a fun day for the receiver. Slants, posts, comebacks, corners, post-corners and ins would be good on this side. Couple those with zone read or speed option play-action. It isn't the triple option but it might just work. I'm in.

(12-07-2016 07:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 05:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  This could be a winnable game. I was not impressed by Stanford other than McCaffrey, their other speedy RB (guessing he returns), and their secondary. Their WR's were not impressive at all, and that is the key to destroying the Rice defense. While they ran for a lot of yards, their O-line wasn't exactly dominating our D-line, in fact I though the entire front 7 held its own. With a healthier D-line than what we fielded the final game of the season (Thompson and Abrecrumbia hopefully healthy to start the year), and Ellerbee returning, their run heavy offense plays into the strength of our D. Our O-line held up OK against their defensive line, Tyner had plenty of time to pass and there were some holes for the RB's. It was their secondary that dominated our WR's and the game. If the Rice offense can make a big improvement (obviously a big "if") we have a chance to make it a competitive game.

Despite their very good profile, Stanford is not as bad a match up for Rice as say, La Tech, WKU, UH, and those schools that have wide open pass offenses with limitless speedsters at WR. Of course, we'll need huge improvement out of the QB position and special teams, but again, it's not as bad a match up as it may seem.

I much prefer if this game were at Rice Stadium, but as always we seem to sell out our home field advantage in these home and away series against good P5 programs like Texas or Stanford. Guess we don't have a choice but to take the money. It's a good idea and a good opportunity for the players and for Rice, I just think we're giving up the home field advantage that could make the difference between a competitive and a non-competitive game, assuming we improve, against a team like Stanford.

Can the rest of us get some of that Kool-Aid?

I don’t think this is a winnable game until we show some playmaking ability, ability to generate turnovers on D/ST, ability to catch the ball, and get some good QB play. Not optimistic on any of those things going into 2017.

However, it is a game that we should cover the spread for reasons mentioned above. Vegas has not fully figured-out that we play well against teams with so-so QB play and run offenses and get clobbered against pass happy teams that spread us out. Would rather play Stanford than Houston, WKU, La Tech, etc. from a competitiveness perspective.