(09-16-2017 09:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 09:19 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Why was the FIU vs Indiana game in Bloomington cancelled?

Hurricane. It apparently caused travel issues for FIU.

A little surprising since games were the played in FL this weekend. FAU played at home in Boca Raton.

UTSA beats Southern 51-17.

Vanderbilt beats #18 KState 14-7.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using CSNbbs mobile app

Tech beats WKU in Bowling Green 23-22

(09-16-2017 10:18 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  Tech beats WKU in Bowling Green 23-22

Welcome to first place club!

The first rule of first place club is ALWAYS talk about first place club!

Seriously though, congrats on knocking off the defending champs (again)

Texas and Southern Cal going to overtime tied at 17.

USC 27 - UT 24 in 2 OTs.

SDSU showing some G5s can compete with Stanford, up 13-7 in 3rd Q.

(09-16-2017 10:18 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  Tech beats WKU in Bowling Green 23-22

Tech beat Toad, 52-45.

(09-16-2017 11:47 PM)At Ease Wrote:  SDSU showing some G5s can compete with Stanford, up 13-7 in 3rd Q.

And the final score of 23-20 SDSU is misleading as Stanford scored a meaningless late TD. SDSU totally dominated the Cardinal, save for Love's 175 yds rushing. The Stanford passing attack that looked so proficient against us managed just 56 yards against SDSU.

Quote:David Lombardi‏ @LombardiHimself 6h6 hours ago
More
Time of possession: SD State 41:14, Stanford 18:46

(09-17-2017 07:31 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 11:47 PM)At Ease Wrote:  SDSU showing some G5s can compete with Stanford, up 13-7 in 3rd Q.

And the final score of 23-20 SDSU is misleading as Stanford scored a meaningless late TD. SDSU totally dominated the Cardinal, save for Love's 175 yds rushing. The Stanford passing attack that looked so proficient against us managed just 56 yards against SDSU.

Quote:David Lombardi‏ @LombardiHimself 6h6 hours ago
More
Time of possession: SD State 41:14, Stanford 18:46

For the sake of accuracy, Stanford actually led 20-16 with under a minute to go.

(09-17-2017 07:31 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 11:47 PM)At Ease Wrote:  SDSU showing some G5s can compete with Stanford, up 13-7 in 3rd Q.

And the final score of 23-20 SDSU is misleading as Stanford scored a meaningless late TD. SDSU totally dominated the Cardinal, save for Love's 175 yds rushing. The Stanford passing attack that looked so proficient against us managed just 56 yards against SDSU.

Quote:David Lombardi‏ @LombardiHimself 6h6 hours ago
More
Time of possession: SD State 41:14, Stanford 18:46

I thought TOP was a despised stat here. Apparently it is the way to defeat Stanford.

(09-17-2017 10:17 AM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 07:31 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 11:47 PM)At Ease Wrote:  SDSU showing some G5s can compete with Stanford, up 13-7 in 3rd Q.

And the final score of 23-20 SDSU is misleading as Stanford scored a meaningless late TD. SDSU totally dominated the Cardinal, save for Love's 175 yds rushing. The Stanford passing attack that looked so proficient against us managed just 56 yards against SDSU.

Quote:David Lombardi‏ @LombardiHimself 6h6 hours ago
More
Time of possession: SD State 41:14, Stanford 18:46

For the sake of accuracy, Stanford actually led 20-16 with under a minute to go.

Umm, to just nitpick a little, that's not what the boxscore is telling me. It was Stanford 17-13 until SDSU scored with just under a minute remaining. SDSU won 20-17.

Definitely no late meaningless Stanford TD, as you noted. Unless under the new English language, the word touchdown now means interception (for no points), or late means the first play of the fourth quarter, or meaningless means takes the lead. Stanford led from after the first play of the 4th quarter until 54 seconds left. I'm teasing some, but that sentence just doesn't come close to describing what happened.

(Other than SDSU just physically dominating and owning the game, even if the score was close. That part is certainly impressive.)

No meaningless late Stanford TD, but what difference does that really make? No need to exaggerate. A team that hung 62 on us has gotten blown out by SC and then lost to a G5. They're not good, which means we are awful.

I don't know whether Rice can compete in D-1 football. But I wouldn't regard the Bailiff administration as providing any conclusive information in that regard. What it proves is that we cannot succeed using an approach that has no chance to succeed.

It was a rather crap day in our house for football.

Same crap Rice puts on the field.

Then UT loses a heartbreak. We only root for them if they play USC, Oklahoma, Alabama or OSU (state pride thing). Not to mention I thought the refs threw the game.

Then Stanford put some more crap onto the field. Which means that Natalie was even more pissed than I was this morning.

I wish I could find the 'smiling crap' emoji. Crap.

Agree that it is a crappy day.

Small picture, the data with Stanford, UTEP, other C-USA, etc all indicate we are really bad team and while schemes have changed, results look to be same of beating bad teams and another year of non-competitive play against mid-tier/good teams. Right now, Houston, UTEP, and Stanford look to be below expectations in their other games. Would not be surprised to beat FIU and hear the optimism/spin around the team being 2-2 with all the adversity they have faced. This is a bad football team and just too hard to succeed in college football without solid QB play. In the classic 80/20 rule (actually 70/30 in this case), Rice has recruited dozens of QB's in the DB era but as discussed on other threads, I think about 70% of DB's wins happened with two QB's. Others (more than a dozen of them) have accounted for just over 30% of wins.

Bigger picture as we see former peer FB schools like TCU and Baylor pass us by in the 90's, then we see UH pass us by in the 2000's, now we see former doormat G5 schools like Memphis, La Tech, SD St, UTSA, etc. passing us by today. That is what is really most sad/embarassing (not angry anymore)

Guess next rung down on the ladder of peer schools is that 100-125 teams of FBS in Sunbelt and bottom of C-USA.

I think we used to get recruits whose parents knew of Rice as that great school who was in SWC, and although not particularly good at football, did not hesitate to strap it on and when we did play the big boys, and it was fun and interesting to our student body who had friends who went to the different schools in Texas. Those days are gone.

(09-17-2017 06:13 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  I think we used to get recruits whose parents knew of Rice as that great school who was in SWC, and although not particularly good at football, did not hesitate to strap it on and when we did play the big boys, and it was fun and interesting to our student body who had friends who went to the different schools in Texas. Those days are gone.

THIS

(09-17-2017 06:13 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  I think we used to get recruits whose parents knew of Rice as that great school who was in SWC, and although not particularly good at football, did not hesitate to strap it on and when we did play the big boys, and it was fun and interesting to our student body who had friends who went to the different schools in Texas. Those days are gone.

And being a member of a conference that's such a geographic monstrosity doesn't help. We're playing FIU next weekend. How crazy is that?

(09-17-2017 09:32 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 06:13 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  I think we used to get recruits whose parents knew of Rice as that great school who was in SWC, and although not particularly good at football, did not hesitate to strap it on and when we did play the big boys, and it was fun and interesting to our student body who had friends who went to the different schools in Texas. Those days are gone.

And being a member of a conference that's such a geographic monstrosity doesn't help. We're playing FIU next weekend. How crazy is that?

It's in keeping with our international focus. Yep, we are pretty much focused.