We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

And that list is credible? You do realize Baylor almost beat #3 ranked Oklahoma, right? Do you have any doubt that Baylor would blow us off the field?

The list is purely tongue-in-cheek, based on perceptions of who ought to be the most embarrassed of late.

(09-26-2017 10:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

And that list is credible? You do realize Baylor almost beat #3 ranked Oklahoma, right? Do you have any doubt that Baylor would blow us off the field?

Lighten up, Walt. Bottom 10 or Bottom 25 or bottom anything are all way more subjective than top 10 or top 25 lists'. Look at #5. does that seem like a real choice to you?

Is this because I was the one who posted it, and the kneejerk reaction is that I am always defending Bailiff?

The list is only important to us in that had we made it, it would have been remarked on here far more negatively than if we had not. But we didn't make it, yet, so the scheissesturm is eased a little, for a short while.

We likely will be there soon.

Let the fun begin. It is football season!!!

Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

it was surprising to me. I expected us to be on it. I can almost guarantee the loser of the Pitt-Rice game will be on it next week.

since it's start (and I remember it in the paper in the early to mid 70's), the bottom 10 has always had elements of humor and truth.......

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

Read the list. Thought it was humorous and tongue in cheek.
I must say, though, I was happy to see us NOT on the list... but then I realized we didn't make the list..not because we aren't Bottom 10 material, but because to ESPN and their ilk we are INVISIBLE.

(09-26-2017 10:49 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

Read the list. Thought it was humorous and tongue in cheek.
I must say, though, I was happy to see us NOT on the list... but then I realized we didn't make the list..not because we aren't Bottom 10 material, but because to ESPN and their ilk we are INVISIBLE.

Exactly. Rice is no longer even attracting mockery for a loss fully deserving of it. Rice football is back to being "lovable losers" - the sports equivalent of "friend-zoned." Ack.

(09-26-2017 10:51 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:49 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

Read the list. Thought it was humorous and tongue in cheek.
I must say, though, I was happy to see us NOT on the list... but then I realized we didn't make the list..not because we aren't Bottom 10 material, but because to ESPN and their ilk we are INVISIBLE.

Exactly. Rice is no longer even attracting mockery for a loss fully deserving of it. Rice football is back to being "lovable losers" - the sports equivalent of "friend-zoned." Ack.

Nah. We were visible enough to make the waiting list. They just deemed others as more worthy or more fun to list.

(09-26-2017 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Nevertheless, it is subjective and intended to be humorous.

it was surprising to me. I expected us to be on it. I can almost guarantee the loser of the Pitt-Rice game will be on it next week.

If Pitt loses then I agree, but we're not on the list before we were expected to be gawd awful...and we're meeting expectations.

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

(09-26-2017 03:56 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

Where is the word "underperforming" quoted from? I scanned the article but may have missed it.

My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

If Rice "fans" cannot find anything positive about NOT being on this list, they sure need an injection of self esteem. It seems we just look for way to self flaggellate.

(09-26-2017 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:56 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

Where is the word "underperforming" quoted from? I scanned the article but may have missed it.

My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

If Rice "fans" cannot find anything positive about NOT being on this list, they sure need an injection of self esteem. It seems we just look for way to self flaggellate.

Of course. Why do you think I go to the football games?

(09-26-2017 04:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:56 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

Where is the word "underperforming" quoted from? I scanned the article but may have missed it.

My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

If Rice "fans" cannot find anything positive about NOT being on this list, they sure need an injection of self esteem. It seems we just look for way to self flaggellate.

Of course. Why do you think I go to the football games?

To count butts in seats.

How can anyone (and I mean anyone associated with Rice University) stand this anymore?

http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...17aaa.html

"We have got to get everybody on the same page. It starts with me. Everything in this program begins and ends with me. We’ve got to get the offense on the same page. We’ve got execution errors up front. We have execution errors with the running backs (and) receivers. We’re looking at everything that we’re doing in practice to ensure that we’re getting the execution that we need."

(09-26-2017 04:59 PM)LonghornOwl Wrote:  How can anyone (and I mean anyone associated with Rice University) stand this anymore?

http://www.riceowls.com/sports/m-footbl/...17aaa.html

"We have got to get everybody on the same page. It starts with me. Everything in this program begins and ends with me. We’ve got to get the offense on the same page. We’ve got execution errors up front. We have execution errors with the running backs (and) receivers. We’re looking at everything that we’re doing in practice to ensure that we’re getting the execution that we need."

You're going to hear the same stuff next year, regardless of who is coach.

(09-26-2017 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

The list is actually fairly accurate in terms of properly identifying who is really awful. The fifth slot is an "honorary" place, as I'm sure you can tell.

So it is basically the nine worst teams in the country. We're not on the list... yet. But we should be. We beat one of the teams on the list (UTEP, who is awful beyond comprehension), but that only keeps us off because they don't want the list to be made up of just one or two conferences. But it easily could be all CUSA and Sun Belt teams, no doubt.

As for Stanford underperforming... You mean the same Stanford that wiped out UCLA and lost close games to two ranked, undefeated opponents that might end up winning their respective conferences? OK. I wish that meant underperforming for Rice.

Sanity has gone out the window 'round these parts. We are shambolic, an absolute farce. No sugarcoating it. And under the current regime, we were destined to end up this way.

(09-26-2017 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:56 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 10:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are not on it, although we are on the waiting list.

Two other Texas schools, Baylor and UTEP, are on it.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/sto...east-least

(09-26-2017 10:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, since this is a list of teams that underperformed embarrassingly, Rice's absence from it after losing at home to FIU is depressing, not a positive.

Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

Where is the word "underperforming" quoted from? I scanned the article but may have missed it.

My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

If Rice "fans" cannot find anything positive about NOT being on this list, they sure need an injection of self esteem. It seems we just look for way to self flaggellate.

Of course. Why do you think I go to the football games?

To count butts in seats.

Well, there's less time for that now, with fewer timeouts and no meerkatting. There, I said something positive.

(09-26-2017 05:07 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:51 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 04:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:56 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Yep. Sad to say, our team's losses to Stanford, UH and FIU are not yet considered to be "underperforming".

Where is the word "underperforming" quoted from? I scanned the article but may have missed it.

My understanding was this was just somebody's opinion of the opposite end of the Top Ten, adjusted for humor, rather than a serious list of underperforming teams. I would include Stanford on such a list, and UH.

If Rice "fans" cannot find anything positive about NOT being on this list, they sure need an injection of self esteem. It seems we just look for way to self flaggellate.

Of course. Why do you think I go to the football games?

To count butts in seats.

Well, there's less time for that now, with fewer timeouts and no meerkatting. There, I said something positive.

So you're not going to count attendance anymore? The end of an era.