This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

This is an aspect underfunding the program that I haven't appreciated enough. Thanks.

You make some very interesting points. We continually scheduled games as a visitor to Power Five conference teams where we invariably lose by large margins. These so – called "bodybag" games are designed only to provide us with a large payday. This is interesting given that the University apparently does not care how many fans attend home games even though better attendance would result in higher revenues for football.

I agree that we have better chances of competing, thus gaining confidence, when we play other G5 teams. But, as some will point out, we're unlikely to get a big payday visiting such teams or draw good crowds at HRS when we play them here. Others may say that we will not get the program to where we aspire to, i.e. into a better conference, by feeding other G5 teams. Only a victory against a quality P5 opponent will give us that mythical "signature" when that will help elevate us to higher levels.

I think both scenarios are pipe dreams. No one will come watch Rice football other than us die hards when we play as shoddily as we have the last few years, no matter who our opponents are. Further, as our recent record demonstrates, we have very little hope of ever beating quality P5 team.

I suggest it is time to concede that the ship has sailed and Rice has no realistic chances of ever getting into a P5 conference. We are just too academically oriented to ever realistically compete with the players such teams can recruit and we never generate the revenues such conferences look for their members. Our University leadership has no desire to change either one of these realities. Historically, they seem to believe that merely having a Division I program is sufficient to add to the experience of Rice students.

So, I agree with your conclusions stated above. It is time to forget dreams of higher levels and just concentrate on competing in the G5. Let us schedule nonconference opponents from other G5 schools such as SMU, Tulane, Houston. Since we are apparently consigned to CUSA for the foreseeable future, we should try to develop rivalries with the other Texas schools.

Of course, any improvement in our football program must start at the top – the head coach. By all accounts, David Bailiff is a fine man who sets a good example for his players and is a great ambassador for the University. We have probably been too hard on him with our expectations when we play P5 teams. There is really no way our athletes, mainly two and three star recruits, can compete with the players on those teams. But, when we lose by huge margins to other G5 teams, he does not meet our reasonable expectations. If we were to play only other G5 teams, our results would be a better measure of just how good Coach Bailiff is.

In another thread, the OP suggested that those of us who would like to see a change in the head coach would be rooting for Rice to lose this year. I cannot do that, even though I feel a change is long overdue. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see us have a great successful year where I would eat the above words. And, I will be rooting for Rice in every game. Over the years, in conversations with players and their parents, I've come to appreciate the sacrifices the athletes make to play football and to successfully perform in the classroom. So for their sake, I hope we win.

I've said this on here ever since we graduated Taylor. Most don't listen on here and make snide comments (even though they never played a down in their life). Or think it's the only way to raise revenue as a program. Which is a valid point but the school doesn't adequately fund the program in relation to the school's resources anyways. Very few on here are willing to listen to guys who have been there in the last decade and have a reasonable discussion.

(08-23-2017 12:38 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  You make some very interesting points. We continually scheduled games
I think both scenarios are pipe dreams. No one will come watch Rice football other than us die hards when we play as shoddily as we have the last few years, no matter who our opponents are. Further, as our recent record demonstrates, we have very little hope of ever beating quality P5 team.
I suggest it is time to concede that the ship has sailed and Rice has no realistic chances of ever getting into a P5 conference. We are just too academically oriented to ever realistically compete with the players such teams can recruit and we never generate the revenues such conferences look for their members. Our University leadership has no desire to change either one of these realities. Historically, they seem to believe that merely having a Division I program is sufficient to add to the experience of Rice students.
So, I agree with your conclusions stated above. It is time to forget dreams of higher levels and just concentrate on competing in the G5. Let us schedule nonconference opponents from other G5 schools such as SMU, Tulane, Houston. Since we are apparently consigned to CUSA for the foreseeable future, we should try to develop rivalries with the other Texas schools.

You make good points. But here is the problem with scheduling. It's not a one-way street. Both schools have to agree to play a game before it can be scheduled. And while we may have no aspirations toward P5 status or greater revenues, people like Houston, SMU, and possibly even Tulane still do. So as long as we do not have those aspirations, it really makes little sense from their point of view to schedule a game with Rice, particularly at Rice Stadium. It makes no sense for them to come here and play before 10,000 actual in-stadium fans, and it makes little sense for them to play us at their place when a bigger payday is available. Other than some sort of SWC continuity argument (which obviously does not apply to Tulane) there is no reason for them to play us.

I think the real bottom line is that as long as we do not have those aspirations, scheduling is going to be one of many problems we face. We can get "body bag" games at P5 schools. They'd rather play someone who is at least nominally FBS than an FCS school, for numerous reasons. We can't get them to come to HRS, but then we probably can't get UH or SMU or Tulane to come to HRS on a regular basis.

I think we are pretty much in a position where there is no viable way forward on the current path. If we were in Connecticut, we could find conference mates with similar aspirations. We cannot in Texas. McKinsey made that point pretty clearly. So we either change those aspirations or drop down a couple of levels. McKinsey laid that out pretty clearly. A decade plus later and we've had virtually no movement. I can't really criticize Bobby May or Chris delConte or Joe Karlgaard or even David Bailiff too heavily for not changing those aspirations. Todd Graham tried to change the aspirations. I liked the concept, but hated his methods, and we are better off without him. What we need is someone who can change aspirations without being a sleaze bag. Someone asked me how many games I thought Nick Saban would win at Rice. My answer is zero, because he would never come to Rice without those aspirations changing.

I think the trajectory of our program versus UH (or TCU) over the past decade (or past 5 decades) pretty much shows what happens with different aspirations. Those trajectories will continue to diverge until we (or they) change aspirations. My guess is that they're not going to change. So what do we do?

(08-22-2017 11:09 PM)McHargue Wrote:  This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

Great post Taylor. Awesome to have you here. Would like to get a generational perspective from you that is different at least from my old school one. As a former player, playing those big time games was not 'whoring' out the program but a reason why I came to Rice vs. Ivy Leagues. You want to play against the best.

Many of is played in the old SWC and think playing 'one' Texas, A&M, etc. is actually the joke and what is crippling the program is not the schedule but many other factors (some would say head coach, some would say C-USA, some would say funding, some would say administration,etc, etc.).

No intention of debating those points as they are tired debates on the board here but rather address the question of why Rice historically has played competitively (esp in 90's) with 5-6 games/season against top competition vs. one strong P5 game today. So despite a) Rice having more guys in NFL than ever today (talent is there) and b) Rice showing historically it could be competitive against better competition (e.g., winning the SWC in its last season), we now need to aspire to lower scheduling standards?

There are already ~7 games on the current schedule against teams not even in the top 75 of college football and probably 3-4 with teams not even in the top 100. I would like to see us aim higher and not blame playing Texas, Notre Dame, etc. in same season as a reason why football is struggling. Actually, I don't think we played even one game last year against a team that finished in the top 25. So hard to blame scheduling for anything that impacted last years disappointing performance.

But you have a different view that sounds like we just can't be competitive (vs. even winning) against decent P5 competition. That is concerning to me about the future of our football program.

So getting to the long winded generational question for you....how do you see scheduling one decent game/year being a positive factor to get Rice get to be a Baylor or a TCU? Was not that long ago when they were peers in FB. I don't see it happening by winning against crappy teams as we have proved from 2006-13 we can do that but has not altered trajectory of program but sounds like you have different view that I'd like to understand better. Again, great to have you here for these kinds of exchanges.

Taylor, very thoughtful post, and I agree with much of it, but let's not give the impression that those money bag OOC football games are covering the financial losses of other Rice sports. That's simply not true. Football is far and away the biggest drain on athletic department funding, and represents the lions share of the department's financial losses. That's a fact. Sure, the other sports (with the exception of baseball) are all losing money, but the financial losses of all those other sports put together pale next to the financial losses from football.

I understand the points made here... under Coach Hatfield we played solid against and even beat some of those P5 teams in the 90s. But I believe that had everything to do with his style of offensive play coupled with sound coaching and disciplined teams. I do understand the feeling of doubt players have... we played Michigan (top 5 team) two years in a row.... Ricky Williams and Major Applewhite longhorn teams.... Oklahoma during national title season, etc.... We always thought we could win, but I wouldnt say we "knew" we would win. Rice is different than those schools. I like that we are different. I even like to think that we are better than those schools.... because of the way our student athletes do things... hate to say it, but I am ok with the teams around .500 consistently with a 7,8, or 9 win year mixed in occasionally.

Sent from my SM-G920V using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-22-2017 11:09 PM)McHargue Wrote:  This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

What do you think about body bag games that don't put big dollars into the athletic department but are a great experience for the kids?

(08-23-2017 07:27 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Taylor, very thoughtful post, and I agree with much of it, but let's not give the impression that those money bag OOC football games are covering the financial losses of other Rice sports. That's simply not true. Football is far and away the biggest drain on athletic department funding, and represents the lions share of the department's financial losses. That's a fact. Sure, the other sports (with the exception of baseball) are all losing money, but the financial losses of all those other sports put together pale next to the financial losses from football.

Walt, my first internship at Rice was in the Finance department of the athletic department and I had the chance to look at the budgets and EOY statements from each team. In 2011 our football team was the only team at Rice that generated a profit. Between playing Baylor, Texas, Purdue, and Northwestern and then the amount we made on our TV deal it more than covered the expenses for the team.

If I had to make a plan to get Rice out of CUSA (which we all want) I think it starts with getting us out of these non conference schedules. You're looking at a minimum of a 10 year plan, and likely longer, to turn Rice into the Boise, Stanford, TCU model.

String together multiple 8,9,10 win seasons and have multiple conference championships in a 5 year span and then your recruiting expectations should be that with those classes recruited off that recent success you should be able to grab a couple "quality wins". By year 8 or 9 you've won conference multiple times, been in a bowl every year, and have a couple key wins.

That is the only possible way I think that is realistic to getting Rice to sustained success and out of CUSA. Otherwise keep scheduling the way we have and we'll find ourselves yelling at the clouds when we still can't beat Texas or A&M and we finish 4-8 in a terrible CUSA, and blame it on everyone but who is most responsible: The AD and University. The way we run our program does not allow us to be set up for success, and there is no coach that can fix that.

(08-23-2017 08:39 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 11:09 PM)McHargue Wrote:  This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

What do you think about body bag games that don't put big dollars into the athletic department but are a great experience for the kids?

The best experience for kids are Bowl Games. Hands down. They would rather win games and be in a bowl at the end of the year than play in 4 big stadiums and get crushed.

(08-23-2017 08:54 AM)McHargue Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 08:39 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 11:09 PM)McHargue Wrote:  This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

What do you think about body bag games that don't put big dollars into the athletic department but are a great experience for the kids?

The best experience for kids are Bowl Games. Hands down. They would rather win games and be in a bowl at the end of the year than play in 4 big stadiums and get crushed.

+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,etc, to your entire post, Taylor. Thanks for weighing in.

(08-23-2017 09:08 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 08:54 AM)McHargue Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 08:39 AM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(08-22-2017 11:09 PM)McHargue Wrote:  This is a long post, but I feel like it needs to be addressed in advance of this season and the heinous schedule we're about to play.

I just want to point out what a joke our non conference scheduling is and has been for as long as I've been around the program. Whoring out your football team to cover the financial losses of everyone in the athletic department (minus baseball) is not a good model and I'm not sure how many more seasons we have to have of starting 2-4 or 1-5 before someone fixes it.

Go back and look at our non conference schedules for the last 10 years and find me a season that sets us up for success. We should be playing 1 elite team (Texas, TA&M, etc.) 2 Mac/Mountain West/Sun Belt teams, and one 1AA team. Every single year. We are crippling these kids chances of success when they don't have a home game until the last week of September, and have to play 3 power 5 teams on the road. If they were good enough to beat 3 power 5 teams they wouldn't be at Rice!

There are plenty of things about Rice that you can make excuses about that are unfair to the school and the athletic department, but this is not one of them. We give ourselves little to no chance for early season success every single year, and we look up at the midseason point at 1-5 and wonder why. Go lose your first 3 games by double digits and them tell them to shake it off for conference play and see how that goes. They have no confidence by week 4 because you flew them all over the country to get their a$$es handed to them for some cash, and then we're scrambling in weeks 11 and 12 to maybe make an awful bowl.

A lot is made of "quality wins" on this board. You have to build to that. You don't recruit the kind of talent it takes to win those types of games by scheduling the way we do and praying for a 7 or 8 win season. Otherwise wait around every 5 or 6 years and have 19 returning starters and 25 seniors and maybe you'll have a chance, if your coach can survive that long. So whatever happens at the coaching position after this season, don't expect some drastic turn around if we're still scheduling the way we have been for years.

What do you think about body bag games that don't put big dollars into the athletic department but are a great experience for the kids?

The best experience for kids are Bowl Games. Hands down. They would rather win games and be in a bowl at the end of the year than play in 4 big stadiums and get crushed.

+ 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,etc, to your entire post, Taylor. Thanks for weighing in.

Sounds good to me. I think it's good for this place to hear that from you. Those koalas sure were cute though weren't they. Lol.

(08-23-2017 12:38 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  In another thread, the OP suggested that those of us who would like to see a change in the head coach would be rooting for Rice to lose this year. I cannot do that, even though I feel a change is long overdue. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see us have a great successful year where I would eat the above words. And, I will be rooting for Rice in every game. Over the years, in conversations with players and their parents, I've come to appreciate the sacrifices the athletes make to play football and to successfully perform in the classroom. So for their sake, I hope we win.

Amen. I will never root against any Owl team in any situation.

(08-23-2017 06:28 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  I've said this on here ever since we graduated Taylor. Most don't listen on here and make snide comments (even though they never played a down in their life). Or think it's the only way to raise revenue as a program. Which is a valid point but the school doesn't adequately fund the program in relation to the school's resources anyways. Very few on here are willing to listen to guys who have been there in the last decade and have a reasonable discussion.

You have actually helped change my mind on this topic, so I at least appreciate the insights you have provided to the Parliament. For instance, it is easy to gloss over the physical differences between Rice players (who to most normal human beings, look incredibly strong and fast) with upper-level P5 players. This is especially true when fans tend to compare the better players at Rice (Gaines, Callahan, Covington, etc. (to stay on the other side of the ball)) with the best players on the opposing P5 team. It seems to me that the gap is likely much smaller when comparing Rice's elite players with opposing elite players than it is further down the depth chart on both teams. For instances, Rice's best O-lineman can likely hold his own against UT's better D-lineman. But when Rice's 7th-best O-lineman is rotated in, even if he's facing UT's 7th-best D-lineman, the talent gap is probably much greater.

I also did not previously consider the psychological impact of front-loading the schedule with these types of games on the players. It is something both you and Taylor have now discussed. And while I think it is easy for us fans to try and dismiss this aspect of scheduling, having 2 recent players who both started for the 2013 CUSA championship team talk about the difficulty of playing multiple games like this at the beginning of the season should make every one of us on this board take the issue seriously.

(08-23-2017 08:54 AM)McHargue Wrote:  The best experience for kids are Bowl Games. Hands down. They would rather win games and be in a bowl at the end of the year than play in 4 big stadiums and get crushed.

There has been quite a bit of philosophical discussion on this board over the years about the best way to build the football program long-term. There seem to be 2 main camps:
(1) One camp thinks the best way is build a fairly easy OOC schedule, hopefully dominate CUSA, and finish multiple seasons with (hopefully) 10 wins to really build recruiting and interest in the program. It sounds like both you and Nate are in this camp. To my eyes, that is similar to what the basketball team was trying to do under Coach Rhoades, and frankly, if he had stayed 1 or 2 more years, I think it was working. The short-term problem is that the program doesn't bring in as much money and most fans, when presented with a multitude of other entertainment options, just don't care to sit in the blazing sun to watch Rice play a team from the MAC, MWC, or Sun Belt. So during the first couple years of this strategy (assuming your coaching staff and player talent is good enough to beat all the bad and mediocre opponents), there are still some short-term risk. And if your coaches/players are not talented enough to execute this strategy, then you end up putting Rice much further behind.
(2) The other camp thinks that the better way to build the program is to schedule fairly tough OOC opponents. This will bring more money into the program short-term, and the quality of the opponents puts more eyeballs on Rice. If that money gets re-invested into the program (facilities and other perks), that immediately starts improving Rice's ability to recruit talented players. Also, supposedly, the opportunity to play some great opponents in filled stadiums might be a draw to potential recruits. Once again, this strategy ultimately relies on dominating CUSA.

(Admittedly, a lot of people are in more of an in between place at this point, seeing that there are valid arguments on both sides).

Ultimately, the common thread in both sides is obvious. Rice needs to be able to dominate CUSA. Most years, that has not happened. So the question becomes, which schedule best prepares Rice to dominate CUSA? It sounds like from a physical and psychological perspective, both Nate and Taylor are telling us that an easier OOC schedule puts Rice in the best position to dominate CUSA. That would hopefully result in less interesting opponents and less short-term money for the program, but more wins.

I am fine with that. Before Nate started posting here, I would have completely disagreed. But you guys are in a much better position to know this than I am. But there can be no excuses for losing to mediocre CUSA teams if Rice takes this approach. The coaching staff would need to be help accountable for those kind of losses if they are playing a fairly easy OOC schedule.

As a follow-up to my post, what do Nate and Taylor think about playing lower-level P5 schools when we can get them? Teams like Vandy, Duke, Purdue, Kansas, Northwestern, etc.? Does that help minimize your concerns if Rice can schedule those types of teams? Or do you still think the same problems exist if there are 2-3 of those games?

edit: also, Owl 69/70/75 always makes the good point that we can only schedule teams that want to schedule us. We can never lose sight of this truth.

Looking at an actual Rice schedule from the recent past, what did you think of the 2012 schedule (or what do you think of it, in retrospect)? Rice's OOC opponents were UCLA, Kansas (P5, but horrible), LaTech (WAC at that time), and UTSA (WAC).

This seems to be similar to the schedule you are advocating, we even opened the season at home! And while it was great that Rice made a bowl game and finished the season with a winning record, I would argue that if Rice takes the same OOC scheduling approach every year, then the 2012 season should be viewed as a disappointment. Rice can't build the program long-term with that kind of schedule if Rice then gets blown out by one of the WAC teams (LaTech) and loses to mediocre CUSA opponents like Marshall and Memphis.

What does Rice need to do so that if every season has a schedule similar to 2012, Rice can finish the season with 10 wins instead of 7? Please understand, I'm not pointing the finger at either of you, the coaching staff, or anything else. I'm not even trying to get into specifics of why Rice did not win more games in 2012 (though it is worth noting that the 2012 team had 7 future NFL players - Gaines, Callahan, Covington, Willson, McDonald, Jordan Taylor, Boswell). I'm just trying to understand what else, in addition to scheduling, Rice can do. Because my fear is that if every season's schedule looks like 2012, the results will not be enough to improve the Football team or the athletic department long-term.

(08-23-2017 09:54 AM)mrbig Wrote:  As a follow-up to my post, what do Nate and Taylor think about playing lower-level P5 schools when we can get them? Teams like Vandy, Duke, Purdue, Kansas, Northwestern, etc.? Does that help minimize your concerns if Rice can schedule those types of teams? Or do you still think the same problems exist if there are 2-3 of those games?

edit: also, Owl 69/70/75 always makes the good point that we can only schedule teams that want to schedule us. We can never lose sight of this truth.

I think that is a great idea when we are able to have 5+ years of bowl games in a row. I can't find the post, but I've advocated for one big P5 game (UT, A&M, TCU, Tech for example), one lower echelon P5 game (Kansas, Boston College, Vandy), then a "rival" (SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UH), and an "easy" game (Texas State, ULM, New Mexico State, 1AA team) when we get to bowl game consistency.

Of course, the argument could be made is that is what we have done this season after 3 years in a row of bowl appearances, 2 bowl wins, and a conference championship with a down year last year. But, I don't think it was a long enough time to switch to that strategy.

No, it's not glorious beating up on NMSU. But guess what, it's a win to get to a bowl game. Bowl games=money, fans, publicity, and of course fun for the players. Everyone wants to go to a team that has gone to a bowl game 5 years in a row. If we can be a perennial bowl team, then step it up, drop one of the NMSU-like teams, replace it with another mid-major or lower echelon P5 team. By that point, the team should be in a better position to compete (and win) against a lower echelon P5 team.

To the edit: Teams will always be willing to play for a home and home. I mean we got NMSU at the drop of the hat before my senior year. They cancelled on us the next year, so we scheduled Hawaii. It's not as difficult to find teams to play, the key is being willing to take the bite in money coming in, for a *probable* win. Almost every school in the country loses money on athletics and it's not a big deal for them, so why should it be for us if we want to be any better than we are now? Athletics bring other qualities to a school than just money, Rice doesn't seem to recognize that.

(08-23-2017 09:54 AM)mrbig Wrote:  As a follow-up to my post, what do Nate and Taylor think about playing lower-level P5 schools when we can get them? Teams like Vandy, Duke, Purdue, Kansas, Northwestern, etc.? Does that help minimize your concerns if Rice can schedule those types of teams? Or do you still think the same problems exist if there are 2-3 of those games?

edit: also, Owl 69/70/75 always makes the good point that we can only schedule teams that want to schedule us. We can never lose sight of this truth.

Marshall is the best example I can think of of a team that schedules well. Every year they play a mac team, usually a 1AA, and either 2 P5 teams that aren't great (this year is NC State and Cinci) or the schedule another mac, sun belt school.

There are plenty of G5 teams that will play us, that's not the problem. The issue is the school signing off on it because we will lose money on a home and home with a New Mexico state or ULM.

I stand by that the advantages of a weak OOC far out weigh a tough slate against P5 schools. Another point I forgot to mention is the health of your team. Injuries can happen against anyone, but we were always so beat up and had several major injuries after OOC play because we just played 3 games against teams a lot bigger and faster than what we see in conference. In 2009 (team was awful anyways but still) we played TTU, OKState, and Vandy in a row. Vandy was our first home game and it was almost October. Just another example of poor leadership that put that schedule in place.

Winning breeds winning, and having more bowl games painted in the stadium is what attracts kids. Not playing on ESPN weeks one and two in games you have little to no chance of winning.

(08-23-2017 10:18 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Looking at an actual Rice schedule from the recent past, what did you think of the 2012 schedule (or what do you think of it, in retrospect)? Rice's OOC opponents were UCLA, Kansas (P5, but horrible), LaTech (WAC at that time), and UTSA (WAC).

This seems to be similar to the schedule you are advocating, we even opened the season at home! And while it was great that Rice made a bowl game and finished the season with a winning record, I would argue that if Rice takes the same OOC scheduling approach every year, then the 2012 season should be viewed as a disappointment. Rice can't build the program long-term with that kind of schedule if Rice then gets blown out by one of the WAC teams (LaTech) and loses to mediocre CUSA opponents like Marshall and Memphis.

What does Rice need to do so that if every season has a schedule similar to 2012, Rice can finish the season with 10 wins instead of 7? Please understand, I'm not pointing the finger at either of you, the coaching staff, or anything else. I'm not even trying to get into specifics of why Rice did not win more games in 2012 (though it is worth noting that the 2012 team had 7 future NFL players - Gaines, Callahan, Covington, Willson, McDonald, Jordan Taylor, Boswell). I'm just trying to understand what else, in addition to scheduling, Rice can do. Because my fear is that if every season's schedule looks like 2012, the results will not be enough to improve the Football team or the athletic department long-term.

Good points. But I think there are a few things:

1) La Tech was really good that year, had a lot of seniors.
2) I think Marshall won conference that year? We lost to them in OT or 2OT I can't remember.
3) We lost to Tulsa in OT as well I believe.

Flip those two games and we are sitting at 8-4, 9-4 with a bowl win. (That's off the top of my head, I apologize if I'm incorrect on those games.