Read an article on the Big12 situation and saw this quote:
"As a whole, the committee did one very important and commendable thing, it reaffirmed that strong non-conference scheduling is important. That decree should force teams to go away from buying games against weak opponents and instead face off with other major programs. The BCS, which the playoff replaced, did the opposite, which led to a rash of early season cupcakes in recent years."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-left...ncaaf.html
Question, with respect to the above, can Rice use this new perceived reality to improve its non-conference opponents even more? Admittedly, we've done well not to pull a Marshall and actually schedule some decent non-con opponents, but will this help us finally get, say, LSU back on the schedule? Would South Carolina be a possibility? Would Alabama find us more palatable to get that 0-3 monkey off their back? Ya'll know I want to play GA Tech.
From their perspective, they can still get their non-con wins against us instead of some of those FCS schools, but maybe we can not only play some of these 'new" teams (or not in a long while teams) but maybe even entice a 1for1 or 2for1 out of them?
We are the cupcake, so if this changes anything in scheduling practices, it would make it even harder to play G5 teams.
(12-07-2014 10:11 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]We are the cupcake, so if this changes anything in scheduling practices, it would make it even harder to play G5 teams.
Agree.
One thing that all this might promote is more games with 80 and 90 points scored.
If I'm TCU, I have to wonder about any game where we pulled our foot off the accelerator when we could've made more of a 'statement' to the committee. (and they evidently did ease up this weekend.)
Baylor had 70 against NW State and 63 against Buffalo. I don't think running up the score on patsies will do much. The Big 12 was hurt by down years by Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. It wasn't as strong as a conference overall as the Big 10/11 in my opinion.
(12-07-2014 10:11 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]We are the cupcake, so if this changes anything in scheduling practices, it would make it even harder to play G5 teams.
I think that where teams in the past may have scheduled Rice, SMU, FCS and Sunbelt, they may schedule Big XII, PAC-10, CUSA and AAC.
Rice may transition from the icing on the cupcake to the part of the cupcake that's left over on the wrapper, but I don't think that Rice will have trouble finding people to come to their campus to ensure that they have more home games than away games. BCS was only one of the drivers... extra home games and associated revenue remains another key driver.
(12-07-2014 11:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Baylor had 70 against NW State and 63 against Buffalo. I don't think running up the score on patsies will do much. The Big 12 was hurt by down years by Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. It wasn't as strong as a conference overall as the Big 10/11 in my opinion.
The numbers just don't bear that out. My system has the Big 12 as the third best conference, ahead of the Big Ten. The Massey combined college football ratings has the Big 12 #3 and the Big Ten at #5.
The scheduling is a real problem for Baylor. We have pretty regular series with both Rice and SMU on a true home and home basis. Rice will help us perception wise next year because Rice is a bowl team. Baylor got attacked almost overnight about scheduling that was done 6 years ago. Six years ago, we were ecstatic to be in the Texas Bowl. Somehow we should have known then that we would be a national contender and scheduled better. Baylor has the same problem as Rice. Teams don't want to come play us in Waco. They will play us at a neutral site but no Waco unless it is a 2 for 1, which we are not going to do. I fully expect the new SMU coach to opt out of our game going forward. I am interested to see how soon it goes to 8 teams, which could help Rice.
(12-07-2014 11:06 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Baylor had 70 against NW State and 63 against Buffalo. I don't think running up the score on patsies will do much. The Big 12 was hurt by down years by Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas. It wasn't as strong as a conference overall as the Big 10/11 in my opinion.
Agreed. And you can add Texas Tech to the list of Big 12 teams having down years. There were really only 3 quality teams in the conference (TCU, Baylor, KSU), and I'm still not convinced how good KSU really was. The pundits love the rag on the Big 10, but they did end up with 4 ranked teams....and two of the bottom-feeders (Indiana and Northwestern) each pulled off major upsets. I'd probably give the slight edge to the Big 12, but only by the narrowest of margins.
(12-07-2014 09:53 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Would Alabama find us more palatable to get that 0-3 monkey off their back?
All three games have been in the State of Texas (1 @ the Cotton Bowl, 2 @ Rice Stadium).
FWIW: Here are future non-conference schedules for some other Big 12 teams:
TEXAS
2015: 9/05 - at Notre Dame; 09/12 - Rice; 09/19 - California
2016: 09/03 - Notre Dame; 09/10 - UTEP; 09/17 - at California
2017: 09/02 - Maryland; 09/09 - UCF; 09/16 - at USC
OKLAHOMA
2015: 09/05 - Akron; 09/12 - at Tennessee; 09/19 - Tulsa
2016: 09/03 - Houston (at NRG Stadium); 09/10 - ULM; 09/17 - Ohio State
2017: 09/02 - UTEP; 09/16 - at Ohio State
OKLAHOMA STATE
2015: 09/05 - at Central Michigan; 09/12 - Central Arkansas; 09/19 - UTSA
2016: 09/03 - Southeastern Louisiana; 09/10 - Central Michigan; 09/17 - Pittsburgh
2017: 09/02 - Tulsa; 09/09 - at South Alabama; 09/16 - at Pittsburgh
TEXAS TECH
2015: 09/05 - Sam Houston State; 09/12 - UTEP; 09/19 - at Arkansas
2016: 09/03 - Stephen F. Austin; 09/10 - at Arizona State
2017: 09/02 - Eastern Washington; 09/16 - Arizona State; TBA - at Houston
KANSAS STATE
2015: 09/05 - South Dakota; 09/12 - at UTSA; 09/19 - Louisiana Tech
2016: TBA - Florida Atlantic; TBA - Missouri State
2017: 09/02 - Central Arkansas; 09/23 - Charlotte
(12-08-2014 01:27 AM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]FWIW: Here are future non-conference schedules for some other Big 12 teams:
TEXAS
2015: 9/05 - at Notre Dame; 09/12 - Rice; 09/19 - California
2016: 09/03 - Notre Dame; 09/10 - UTEP; 09/17 - at California
2017: 09/02 - Maryland; 09/09 - UCF; 09/16 - at USC
OKLAHOMA
2015: 09/05 - Akron; 09/12 - at Tennessee; 09/19 - Tulsa
2016: 09/03 - Houston (at NRG Stadium); 09/10 - ULM; 09/17 - Ohio State
2017: 09/02 - UTEP; 09/16 - at Ohio State
OKLAHOMA STATE
2015: 09/05 - at Central Michigan; 09/12 - Central Arkansas; 09/19 - UTSA
2016: 09/03 - Southeastern Louisiana; 09/10 - Central Michigan; 09/17 - Pittsburgh
2017: 09/02 - Tulsa; 09/09 - at South Alabama; 09/16 - at Pittsburgh
TEXAS TECH
2015: 09/05 - Sam Houston State; 09/12 - UTEP; 09/19 - at Arkansas
2016: 09/03 - Stephen F. Austin; 09/10 - at Arizona State
2017: 09/02 - Eastern Washington; 09/16 - Arizona State; TBA - at Houston
KANSAS STATE
2015: 09/05 - South Dakota; 09/12 - at UTSA; 09/19 - Louisiana Tech
2016: TBA - Florida Atlantic; TBA - Missouri State
2017: 09/02 - Central Arkansas; 09/23 - Charlotte
I've seen these. Bill Snyder is up to his old tricks (cupcake city).
Rice will be fine as long as keeps trending upward and keeps going to bowl games.
(12-08-2014 12:07 AM)Converted Rice Wrote: [ -> ]I fully expect the new SMU coach to opt out of our game going forward.
I think Rice should follow that lead.
Rice had two 7-5 P5 "names" on the 2014 schedule, and probably did play both better than Marshall or Louisiana Tech. We have a down Texas program on the 2015 schedule already.
Baylor is in a different class right now than Notre Dame, A&M, or Texas. Another 70 to something rout will be damaging for us, but what Baylor needs to do to their opponents in 2015.
Speaking of non-con scheduling, anyone know who we're playing in our next game after Fresno? Riceowls.com still shows 9/5/15 as TBA.
Sagarin and Massey both have Big XII >> Big Ten. Unfortunately the perception is that when UT and OU are down the conference is no good.
Does anyone think things would have been different if it was UT in TCU or Baylor's shoes?
This actually plays to my argument about what could possibly lead a conference like the SEC to want us over say UH. There's no reason UH couldn't be number 1 and actually compete directly for recruits with the existing top of the SEC. There are lots of reasons to think Rice could be good, but not AS good and not compete as directly.
Rice in CUSA is #80-40, but I have no reason the think we wouldn't be top 50-25 every year in a p5 conference. Good enough to not hurt the SOS. Not so good that you cost the 'big dogs' a shot at the playoff, nor a recruit that costs them a game against another big dog.
(12-08-2014 04:00 PM)07owl Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone think things would have been different if it was UT in TCU or Baylor's shoes?
Absolutely. UT would be in.
(12-08-2014 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that I've wondered about looking into is that most of the SEC schools play their big rivalry games--Alabama-Auburn, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Florida-Florida State, South Carolina-Clemson, Ole Miss-Mississippi State-- the last week of the regular season, the week before the championship game. The week before that, they don't want a big challenge, but they like to play to keep the timing sharp. So they have scheduled a bunch of FCS teams--Bama played Western Carolina, Auburn played Samford (which I think is D-2), and the like. Maybe that's a schedule slot we could slide into for someone. Although if we are in contention in CUSA, we might not want that kind of game then.
Moved your response here from the "fir Bailiff or not" thread. Your comment above is kind of what I was getting at in the OP of this thread.
As to your last sentence, at some point Rice has to just start beating the big boys once in a while for multiple Signature Wins until the big boys take notice and change their perception of Rice football. We can't ever expect to change things, unless we do that, and more than once. And I mean the Top 25 not in a G5 and at least once a Top 10 team.
Beating Baylor or Texas next year would be very helpful, with the caveat that both would be heavily portrayed in the media as 'well, Rice played them so many times in the past, they were bound to win once.' What would really help is beating both in same year, and/or beating a top team we didn't normally play in SWC.
For all the threads arguing about whether DB has or can raise the level of the program, the unfortunate fact seems to be that most all the bowl previews I've read treat Rice as the same doormat-type school it's been with little to no acknowledgement of any progress that's been made recently. I don't think that's quite fair, as some progress has been made, but it's just not been enough to move that needle.
69 told me 2 things we have to offer the SEC are:
1. Available tickets-Most of the SEC stadiums are fully booked so we could offer a place for them to entertain potential donors for the West just as Vanderbilt provides for the East
2. Academic respectability-Alabama and Auburn want to get into the American Association of Universities so having another AAU school in the conference could help them
UH would offer neither of those advantages
(12-08-2014 04:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]This actually plays to my argument about what could possibly lead a conference like the SEC to want us over say UH. There's no reason UH couldn't be number 1 and actually compete directly for recruits with the existing top of the SEC. There are lots of reasons to think Rice could be good, but not AS good and not compete as directly.
Rice in CUSA is #80-40, but I have no reason the think we wouldn't be top 50-25 every year in a p5 conference. Good enough to not hurt the SOS. Not so good that you cost the 'big dogs' a shot at the playoff, nor a recruit that costs them a game against another big dog.