(11-27-2017 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How did this get to be about Bailiff? I have never defended Bailiff by saying he is an unlucky coach or that his failures were due to bad luck. Why do people keep turning this into another Bailiff discussion?
Back to basics. What I have been saying, to no avail.
1. Luck happens. Not everything that happens on a football field, a hockey rink, a freeway, in life, anywhere, is due solely to poor/good prep.
2. Even if at some point, a person's/team's luck evens out, it will quickly become uneven again. It does not become static at 50/50 if it ever does even out.
3. My personal opinion, not proven or disproven by facts or in a court of law, is that Rice is on the short side of luck over the time I have followed them, since 1963 (NOT 2007)
Not a damn thing about Bailiff, nor a single excuse. I sure hope that the next coach benefits from from Rice's luck evening out. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. No matter how well prepared he and the team are, a lucky break or a lucky bounce won't hurt, will it? May even make him look even more like a genius than he really is.
Good luck, everybody, I must go for a while.

I don't think I'm the one who brought Bailiff into the discussion. And just to be clear, I'm going back to the 1960s too, and Bailiff is far from the only Rice coach for whom I would offer the same criticisms.

Obviously luck doesn't go 50/50 on every two occasions where it comes into play. But over time, it doesn't go 90/10 either. I can see 55/45 or maybe even 60/40, but you're arguing that it's far more one-sided.

To me, that's not luck. That's preparation and execution and all those other things. If you sit down at the poker table with some random algorithm, you will win some and lose some. A single hand is luck, but if a significant trend develops over time, then that is probably more a reflection of preparation and execution--good or bad--than it is of luck.

One-offs may be luck. Repeated instances are something else. Luck may be 55/45 or even 60/40 over a number of instances. But luck is not going to be 90/10 over any extended period. That's skill or preparation or execution or something else, not luck. If your luck seems always to be bad (or good) then it is probably not luck.

As Chi Chi Rodriguez was fond of saying, "The harder I work, the luckier I get."

Where have I argued that it is far more one sided? 55-45is fine will h me. Heck, I can go with 52-48.

Just saying that to me, it seems we are on the short end of whatever way it divides.

I've seen plenty of lucky breaks for Rice in football games over the years.

This whole argument that Rice has streaks of bad luck is one of the most bizarre and concocted excuses for poor execution and decision making I've seen on Parliament yet.

The individual trials can be independent but the results will regress to the mean over larger number of trials.

quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='14830468' dateline='1511824637']

(11-27-2017 02:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How did this get to be about Bailiff? I have never defended Bailiff by saying he is an unlucky coach or that his failures were due to bad luck. Why do people keep turning this into another Bailiff discussion?
Back to basics. What I have been saying, to no avail.
1. Luck happens. Not everything that happens on a football field, a hockey rink, a freeway, in life, anywhere, is due solely to poor/good prep.
2. Even if at some point, a person's/team's luck evens out, it will quickly become uneven again. It does not become static at 50/50 if it ever does even out.
3. My personal opinion, not proven or disproven by facts or in a court of law, is that Rice is on the short side of luck over the time I have followed them, since 1963 (NOT 2007)
Not a damn thing about Bailiff, nor a single excuse. I sure hope that the next coach benefits from from Rice's luck evening out. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. No matter how well prepared he and the team are, a lucky break or a lucky bounce won't hurt, will it? May even make him look even more like a genius than he really is.
Good luck, everybody, I must go for a while.

I don't think I'm the one who brought Bailiff into the discussion. And just to be clear, I'm going back to the 1960s too, and Bailiff is far from the only Rice coach for whom I would offer the same criticisms.

Obviously luck doesn't go 50/50 on every two occasions where it comes into play. But over time, it doesn't go 90/10 either. I can see 55/45 or maybe even 60/40, but you're arguing that it's far more one-sided.

To me, that's not luck. That's preparation and execution and all those other things. If you sit down at the poker table with some random algorithm, you will win some and lose some. A single hand is luck, but if a significant trend develops over time, then that is probably more a reflection of preparation and execution--good or bad--than it is of luck.

One-offs may be luck. Repeated instances are something else. Luck may be 55/45 or even 60/40 over a number of instances. But luck is not going to be 90/10 over any extended period. That's skill or preparation or execution or something else, not luck. If your luck seems always to be bad (or good) then it is probably not luck.

As Chi Chi Rodriguez was fond of saying, "The harder I work, the luckier I get."
[/quote]

(11-27-2017 12:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:49 AM)gsloth Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 09:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Saban doesn't have to say it every week. Those kinds of statements are coachspeak after a loss. After a win, it is "All the credit goes to the kids".

What did Saban prepare poorly for this week?

In this case, I'm not sure it's a prepare-for-this-week kind of error. These were mental focus/sharpness issues, in large part. Things like thinking you're better than you are (like some of the attempts at big hits instead of fundamental tackling). There were weaknesses shown in earlier games, but because their schedule wound up being so weak (relatively speaking), they didn't really get challenged often enough, and the coaching staff didn't drill out certain weaknesses as much as they might when you have examples from previous games.

That's how I interpret what Saban was saying - based partly on what I also saw in the game (saw most of it, though missed the beginning).

Like I said, I didn't see the game. I resume that Alabama players missed a lot of tackles and/or drew a lot of personal fouls trying to lay big licks on the opposition?

It was mostly bad snaps, silly penalties, and a totally botched field goal attempt—the same stupid stuff that Bailiff’s teams did routinely.

So, for this one week, Bailiff and Saban coached about the same? Badly. Hard for me to believe he did not have his team ready to kick a field goal. But they didn't, so he didn't.

Missing a FG is not luck. Hitting the upright is no luck. Having it bounce off the upright to the left instead of the right....? How do you prepare a team to get the bounce?

There are instances of bad luck in sports. There are not patterns of bad luck.

(11-27-2017 02:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm uncomfortable with this entire conversation because it sounds too much like "woe is us, poor Rice". In 100 years of football, how many events have taken place that can be attributed to either good or bad luck? Thousands? Tens of thousands? I just cannot believe that, for the last 50 years or so, we (or anyone else) have had a measurablemeaningful imbalance. It is much simpler (Occam's Razor again) to imagine that some schools are more successful when they are prepared to take advantage of good luck, or prepared to compensate for bad luck. And that Rice, with fewer resources and typically lower expectations, has been less prepared for those luck events.

Agree. I'm sorry, but to me the talk about bad luck strikes me as just one more excuse in the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," paradigm.

OO, on the one hand you say that you've never heard the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," mantra, and then you go expressing it yourself.

Luck evens out over time, or at least close enough that it cannot be blamed for consistently poor execution. You make your own luck. Or, at the very least, you make how you respond to it.

To cite one oft-cited example. Throwing an interception at the end of the UAB game in 2006 was poor execution on our part and good luck for UAB. Their guy's ensuing fumble was extremely poor execution on his part, and good luck for us. Getting on the ball was good execution by us. But we still hadn't won anything. We still had to score to win the game. And we did, and that was good execution.

(11-27-2017 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm uncomfortable with this entire conversation because it sounds too much like "woe is us, poor Rice". In 100 years of football, how many events have taken place that can be attributed to either good or bad luck? Thousands? Tens of thousands? I just cannot believe that, for the last 50 years or so, we (or anyone else) have had a measurablemeaningful imbalance. It is much simpler (Occam's Razor again) to imagine that some schools are more successful when they are prepared to take advantage of good luck, or prepared to compensate for bad luck. And that Rice, with fewer resources and typically lower expectations, has been less prepared for those luck events.

Agree. I'm sorry, but to me the talk about bad luck strikes me as just one more excuse in the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," paradigm.

OO, on the one hand you say that you've never heard the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," mantra, and then you go expressing it yourself.

Luck evens out over time, or at least close enough that it cannot be blamed for consistently poor execution. You make your own luck. Or, at the very least, you make how you respond to it.

To cite one oft-cited example. Throwing an interception at the end of the UAB game in 2006 was poor execution on our part and good luck for UAB. Their guy's ensuing fumble was extremely poor execution on his part, and good luck for us. Getting on the ball was good execution by us. But we still hadn't won anything. We still had to score to win the game. And we did, and that was good execution.

The 90/10 thing got me thinking. A game that is 90% luck is not worth watching. That's why there are no coin flipping contests on TV. That's why slot machine play is not televised. Nobody wants to watch people play Monopoly or Yachtzee.

Football is, say, 99% skill, and size and speed and out thinking the opposition. For that 99%, preparation is indeed a difference maker. Practice and planning are difference makers. The coach is a difference maker, and that's why Saban > Bailiff.

But sometimes, randomness creeps in. Most notably, the ball bounces this way or that. But other things too.

I doubt that Saban did anything different with the FG team this week. The team was no more or less prepared this week than it was last week or the week before. But something happened this week. I really cannot think it was lack of preparation, unless they needed to run drills on what t do when the holder muffs the ball and failed to run those drills.

The occurrence of luck usually will not determine the outcome of a game. Alabama lost by more than three, I believe. So the muffed FG would not have changed the outcome, probably. It may have affected strategy, some.

But once in a great while, it does affect the outcome of a game. And once in an even greater while, the outcome of that game affects the outcome of a season.

remember, this is 1% of the 1% that is not skill.

It seems to me that over the last half century plus, the number of times something like this has affected Rice adversely is greater than the number of times it has helped us.

I don't know if the absolute numbers are 7-5 or 12-7 or 3-1, over the entire span. I just feel the good luck items are the smaller number for us in that comparison, regardless of the absolute numbers.

Among the things that are beyond the control of a coach to control are official's calls, weather, the bounce of a loose ball, and the flight of a tipped ball.

Another thing that is beyond control is the import of the action. The bounce of a muffed punt in a game that 42-0 is of little import. In a 17-14 game, it could make a difference. The timing of the randomness is also significant. If you have ever asked 'Why NOW?", you understand.

In life, sometimes things happen or don't happen that are beyond control. I never would have thought a passenger saying "Look at the size of that dog" would save my life (and his), but it did. What if my passenger was looking the other way, or said nothing? My life, if not over, would surely be different. Athletic contests are a part of life. They are not totally under our control.

For the 99% (or more) of the game that we can prepare for, yes, definitely, better prep leads to better outcomes. For the rest, cross your fingers and hope the ball bounces to you, not away from you.

We have both explained this to death, so with any luck, this will put this to bed.

(11-28-2017 12:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 07:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 02:24 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I'm uncomfortable with this entire conversation because it sounds too much like "woe is us, poor Rice". In 100 years of football, how many events have taken place that can be attributed to either good or bad luck? Thousands? Tens of thousands? I just cannot believe that, for the last 50 years or so, we (or anyone else) have had a measurablemeaningful imbalance. It is much simpler (Occam's Razor again) to imagine that some schools are more successful when they are prepared to take advantage of good luck, or prepared to compensate for bad luck. And that Rice, with fewer resources and typically lower expectations, has been less prepared for those luck events.

Agree. I'm sorry, but to me the talk about bad luck strikes me as just one more excuse in the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," paradigm.

OO, on the one hand you say that you've never heard the, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," mantra, and then you go expressing it yourself.

Luck evens out over time, or at least close enough that it cannot be blamed for consistently poor execution. You make your own luck. Or, at the very least, you make how you respond to it.

To cite one oft-cited example. Throwing an interception at the end of the UAB game in 2006 was poor execution on our part and good luck for UAB. Their guy's ensuing fumble was extremely poor execution on his part, and good luck for us. Getting on the ball was good execution by us. But we still hadn't won anything. We still had to score to win the game. And we did, and that was good execution.

The 90/10 thing got me thinking. A game that is 90% luck is not worth watching. That's why there are no coin flipping contests on TV. That's why slot machine play is not televised. Nobody wants to watch people play Monopoly or Yachtzee.

Football is, say, 99% skill, and size and speed and out thinking the opposition. For that 99%, preparation is indeed a difference maker. Practice and planning are difference makers. The coach is a difference maker, and that's why Saban > Bailiff.

But sometimes, randomness creeps in. Most notably, the ball bounces this way or that. But other things too.

I doubt that Saban did anything different with the FG team this week. The team was no more or less prepared this week than it was last week or the week before. But something happened this week. I really cannot think it was lack of preparation, unless they needed to run drills on what t do when the holder muffs the ball and failed to run those drills.

The occurrence of luck usually will not determine the outcome of a game. Alabama lost by more than three, I believe. So the muffed FG would not have changed the outcome, probably. It may have affected strategy, some.

But once in a great while, it does affect the outcome of a game. And once in an even greater while, the outcome of that game affects the outcome of a season.

remember, this is 1% of the 1% that is not skill.

It seems to me that over the last half century plus, the number of times something like this has affected Rice adversely is greater than the number of times it has helped us.

I don't know if the absolute numbers are 7-5 or 12-7 or 3-1, over the entire span. I just feel the good luck items are the smaller number for us in that comparison, regardless of the absolute numbers.

Among the things that are beyond the control of a coach to control are official's calls, weather, the bounce of a loose ball, and the flight of a tipped ball.

Another thing that is beyond control is the import of the action. The bounce of a muffed punt in a game that 42-0 is of little import. In a 17-14 game, it could make a difference. The timing of the randomness is also significant. If you have ever asked 'Why NOW?", you understand.

In life, sometimes things happen or don't happen that are beyond control. I never would have thought a passenger saying "Look at the size of that dog" would save my life (and his), but it did. What if my passenger was looking the other way, or said nothing? My life, if not over, would surely be different. Athletic contests are a part of life. They are not totally under our control.

For the 99% (or more) of the game that we can prepare for, yes, definitely, better prep leads to better outcomes. For the rest, cross your fingers and hope the ball bounces to you, not away from you.

We have both explained this to death, so with any luck, this will put this to bed.

I’m on your side on this one OO. I did at least see agreement that there is some luck (the UAB fumble). No chance for the TD that happened after that without the fumble. It’s not definitively a “W” with the fumble (we still had to score), but it is definitively an “L” wothout it.

Let's define some terms. Luck is binary -- it is either good or bad. Its occurrence is purely random -- you cannot make it occur or make it more likely to occur. And in each random occurrence, the chance that that occurrence will be good or bad (for us), is perfectly 50-50. So in the proverbial long run, the incidences of good or bad definitively must approach perfect equality.

Let us also say that each team in Rice games on average over the last 50 years have run about 60 plays per game, so each game has had ~120 plays. Multiply that by 10-13 games per year over the last 50 years = 60K to 70K plays, a/k/a chances for luck to occur. That seems like close enough to a genuine "long run" for me. So again I think the burden of proof must be on the person wishing to demonstrate that the current tally of good vs. bad is significantly out of equilibrium, not on the person who would maintain that it is what all logic says it should be.

And that's before we even get into the discussion of isolating only those occurrences that have had an effect on the outcome of a game. Luck can neither cause nor prevent a blowout. So really, this whole discussion should never even have gotten off the ground unless there was a showing that Rice's record in games decided by one score or less over the last 50 years has been statistically significantly different from our overall record. I'll hang up and wait for the answer on that one.

(11-28-2017 02:22 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Let's define some terms. Luck is binary -- it is either good or bad. Its occurrence is purely random -- you cannot make it occur or make it more likely to occur. And in each random occurrence, the chance that that occurrence will be good or bad (for us), is perfectly 50-50. So in the proverbial long run, the incidences of good or bad definitively must approach perfect

Why do you believe the bolded part? Most binary random variables are not 50-50; many are FAR from 50-50.

(11-28-2017 02:22 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Let's define some terms. Luck is binary -- it is either good or bad. Its occurrence is purely random -- you cannot make it occur or make it more likely to occur. And in each random occurrence, the chance that that occurrence will be good or bad (for us), is perfectly 50-50. So in the proverbial long run, the incidences of good or bad definitively must approach perfect equality.

Let us also say that each team in Rice games on average over the last 50 years have run about 60 plays per game, so each game has had ~120 plays. Multiply that by 10-13 games per year over the last 50 years = 60K to 70K plays, a/k/a chances for luck to occur. That seems like close enough to a genuine "long run" for me. So again I think the burden of proof must be on the person wishing to demonstrate that the current tally of good vs. bad is significantly out of equilibrium, not on the person who would maintain that it is what all logic says it should be.

And that's before we even get into the discussion of isolating only those occurrences that have had an effect on the outcome of a game. Luck can neither cause nor prevent a blowout. So really, this whole discussion should never even have gotten off the ground unless there was a showing that Rice's record in games decided by one score or less over the last 50 years has been statistically significantly different from our overall record. I'll hang up and wait for the answer on that one.

First, I will reeemphasize: it seems to me we are are on the short end of the luck tally. I have no idea how to prove that: maybe I could use the same methods you would use to prove we are not significantly out of equilibrium. And what is the definition of significantly, anyway. Would 55-45 be significant? How about 52-48? I stated either of those would be in my ballpark. I just think the good stuff for Rice in on the 40-something side. That;s an opinion.

You make a good point about one score or less. That tallies with what I was saying about luck in a 42-0 game not being a determining factor, but the same happenstance in a 17-14 game could be. Especially if it happens late in the game. Especially if it happens at our own end of the field. But when and where it happens seem to me to be a function of luck more than coaching.

In a 42-0 game, the long snapper sends the ball over the punters head. Maybe it bounces to the kicker. maybe it bounces to a rusher, who returns if for a score. It has no bearing on the game, just the margin. The way the ball bounced is luck, but the result is meaningless in the W-L column.

In a 17-14 game with 3 minutes left, the long snapper snaps the ball over the punter's head into his own end zone. Now the way the way the ball bounces can affect the outcome of the game. Maybe it is batted out of the EZ for a zafety, maybe it is covered for a TD. What happens is material to both the way the rest of the game is played and who wins.

To be clear, I am not saying the bad snap is bad luck. It is a failure on the part of the DS. But the way the ball bounces is luck.

It is also luck when stuff happens at a crucial point or in a crucial game. Who the heck cares when it happens when you are at 65-3 in the fourth quarter of the first game of the season? But when the same thing happens in the last minute of a 21-20 game for the conference championship, it matters.

I think a bad call by an official cost us a SWC championship and a Cotton Bowl berth. I do not have any idea how Rice coaches and players could have been prepared in such a way as to make that official see it correctly. That would have been a BIIIIIG thing at the time.

There are other games and plays that I think affected the outcome of important games, some for us, some against us. I think the ones against were more numerous and more important. I will take the 1989 win at Texas that was stolen from us in lieu of the 2006 win against UAB all day long. That is my opinion, and I stated as such in the OP. Your opinion is different, but it is also just an opinion.

Mathematically, this is all nonsense. Rice grads really should know better.

In a close game, it's irrelevant if a random event that decides the game happens early in the game or late in the game. It's not more or less "unlucky" depending on when it happens in the game because it has the same effect on the score.

You're trying to mount a pseudo-scientific argument to back into a justification for blaming losing on bad luck.

(11-28-2017 10:17 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Mathematically, this is all nonsense. Rice grads really should know better.

In a close game, it's irrelevant if a random event that decides the game happens early in the game or late in the game. It's not more or less "unlucky" depending on when it happens in the game because it has the same effect on the score.

You're trying to mount a pseudo-scientific argument to back into a justification for blaming losing on bad luck.

Good lord, does nobody listen at all?

I AM NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT , NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY LOSING. That is something springing from your own mind. I did not say it. I did not imply it. I do not agree with it. Stop putting the words in my mouth.

As for my math, I never claimed to be a math major. I was an academ.

I will note, though, that anytime something happens, it affects the rest of the game - the choices that are made.the plays that are called. You cannot simply plug a change into the game in the first quarter and expect the rest of the game to play out exactly as if that change never happened.

So you're arguing that Rice football is unlucky, and this seems to be regardless of who is coach, and that many of Rice's close losses are attributable to bad luck - but you aren't attributing losses to bad luck. Right.

(11-28-2017 09:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a bad call by an official cost us a SWC championship and a Cotton Bowl berth. I do not have any idea how Rice coaches and players could have been prepared in such a way as to make that official see it correctly. That would have been a BIIIIIG thing at the time.

Now wait a minute: SWC officiating going against Rice was never luck -- that was design all the way!

(11-28-2017 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  So you're arguing that Rice football is unlucky, and this seems to be regardless of who is coach, and that many of Rice's close losses are attributable to bad luck - but you aren't attributing losses to bad luck. Right.

Nope. That's what YOU are arguing that I am arguing. I am not. I could just ask to review my posts, but since reading comprehension does not seem to be your thing, that would be a waste.

I am saying, once again for the remedial class, that it seems to me that Rice has had more than its share of bad luck over the decades. It's share would be defined as 50%. So more would be anywhere from 50.0000001% up. (Can't believe I just had to define more on a Rice board).


The luck,both good and bad, is randomly distributed without regard to who is coach, Senator, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Mostly happens on Saturdays, I would guess.

I would say SOME of Rice's losses, as well as SOME of their wins, had a a significant luck component. I say some, you say many. Define many. Somehow, from somewhere, you and others have gotten the idea that I am dismissing multiple losses every year as nothing more than luck. I think the somewhere you are getting this from is sitting on top of your neck. Sure not what I have been saying, not even a corollary.

No need to restate my suppositions - they are repeated many times here, and anybody who wants to know what I think can refer to them.

Life is full of luck. I was lucky to get into Rice, for example. I was lucky to be born in the USA (actually, it was a pretty close thing there). I was unlucky on other ways. I presume luck has affected your life, too, but if you tell me you are solely responsible for everything that has happened to you, I will accept your word.

Why the supposition that although luck affects us all in many ways, it has no effect on the football field? Explain that one to me, if you can and will.

I merely asked if anybody else had the same impression as me. I will mark you down as a "no".

(11-28-2017 10:37 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  So you're arguing that Rice football is unlucky, and this seems to be regardless of who is coach, and that many of Rice's close losses are attributable to bad luck - but you aren't attributing losses to bad luck. Right.

Also, if we think about it, we can find plenty of cases of good luck too.

2007 - USM. How often does one get to play a 4th string QB?
2010 - UH - Keenum got hurt. In 2009 and 2011, he and UH scored 73 on us each time.
2011 - Purdue. They botched that field goal attempt so bad that we got lucky to even be in a position to block it (sounds like the 2006 UAB luck comparisons?)
2012 - Armed forces Bowl. We were well on our way to losing this game until DJ came in due to injury and it changed the whole game
2013 - aTm. Manziel was suspended for the first half. Only reason the game was close. He came in the second half and game over.
2013 - Season. We got bloody lucky every good team in CUSA bolted for the AAC.
2015 - F_U. En route to a blowout when a 2 hour lightning delay changed the course of the game.

These are just examples I came up with at the top of my head. I'm sure with effort, we can find an equal number of good and bad breaks Rice has had over the years.

Your OP. Sure looks to me like you're arguing that Rice is a very unlucky team.

(11-24-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been following Rice football and other sports since 1963, and it seems to me we have the worst luck. Not talking about this coach or that one - it seems to happen to Rice no matter who is coaching or how they are coaching.

Chase breaks his thumb and we lost to UH by a point. An official makes a bad call on a two point conversion and we lose a SWC title and Cotton Bowl berth. Two owls fight for an interception, and the ball falls onto the chest of a receiver lying on the ground for a game winning TD. A returner steps OOB at the one while receiving a KO, a safety ensues, and we lose by a point.

In the old Dogpatch comic strip, there was a character who walked around with a dark cloud over his head. I think Rice is that character.

It is said the luck evens out. I am not so sure that it has evened out for Rice over the last 54 years. The only game I can remember where we got lucky was the 2006 UAB game.

Whatcha think? And don't turn this into yet another Bailiff thread. I am talking 1963 to present.

(11-28-2017 11:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Your OP. Sure looks to me like you're arguing that Rice is a very unlucky team.

(11-24-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been following Rice football and other sports since 1963, and it seems to me we have the worst luck. Not talking about this coach or that one - it seems to happen to Rice no matter who is coaching or how they are coaching.

Chase breaks his thumb and we lost to UH by a point. An official makes a bad call on a two point conversion and we lose a SWC title and Cotton Bowl berth. Two owls fight for an interception, and the ball falls onto the chest of a receiver lying on the ground for a game winning TD. A returner steps OOB at the one while receiving a KO, a safety ensues, and we lose by a point.

In the old Dogpatch comic strip, there was a character who walked around with a dark cloud over his head. I think Rice is that character.

It is said the luck evens out. I am not so sure that it has evened out for Rice over the last 54 years. The only game I can remember where we got lucky was the 2006 UAB game.

Whatcha think? And don't turn this into yet another Bailiff thread. I am talking 1963 to present.

Well, I would add 1994 Texas to the list of games where we got lucky.

But yeah, there is my thought, laid out in two sentences:

"It is said the luck evens out. I am not so sure that it has evened out for Rice over the last 54 years."

Explain how you get the idea that I said that most of our losses are due to luck.

I listed four possible examples. How does that relate to "many" of our losses being due to luck.

As the discussion has gone on, I have refined my thoughts and my lists. maybe there are a half dozen losses, +/- with significant luck involved, and several wins where we benefited from some luck. How does that translate in your mind to me saying that many of our losses were due to bad luck?

All I said was...WELL READ IT AGAIN, ABOVE.

I will still put you down as one of the noes. You are the captain of your fate.

OO

I think that luck IS 50/50... but good luck doesn't always mean winning and bad luck losing.... It COULD mean winning or losing by fewer or more.

Rice is historically pretty good against the spread, right? That implies somewhat that we're actually lucky.

I think the reality is that we'd notice our luck more if it resulted in more surprising wins as it does for 'good' teams rather than having it result in 20 point losses rather than 30 point ones... hence why good teams seem to have more luck and bad teams less of it...

so the 50/50 of 'luck' is laid on top of the winning percentage.