(07-27-2015 03:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

I actually like the home schedule. We play teams we should beat on the road (within conference), and the ones that might be tougher are at home. Sets us up nicely, IMO

Agreed.

I think the overarching issue with the schedule optic is that CUSA football is just horribly weak from a branding/fan interest perspective. Schools like Western Kentucky and La Tech are probably Top 60 teams this year but just don't move the needle on local fan interest (arguably La Tech will bring a few people).

Of course, this is not a new conversation ... we've just got to find a way to get out of this league in the next 2-5 years or so.

(07-27-2015 03:51 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

I actually like the home schedule. We play teams we should beat on the road (within conference), and the ones that might be tougher are at home. Sets us up nicely, IMO

Agreed.

I think the overarching issue with the schedule optic is that CUSA football is just horribly weak from a branding/fan interest perspective. Schools like Western Kentucky and La Tech are probably Top 60 teams this year but just don't move the needle on local fan interest (arguably La Tech will bring a few people).

Of course, this is not a new conversation ... we've just got to find a way to get out of this league in the next 2-5 years or so.

True, but they are good teams nonetheless. We need to give our players and our coaches credit if we win because they'd be big victories. They are both picked to win their respective divisions. We will be underdogs in both games. And as mentioned, we get our two toughest conference games at home. This is a huge advantage for us.

(07-27-2015 04:23 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:51 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

I actually like the home schedule. We play teams we should beat on the road (within conference), and the ones that might be tougher are at home. Sets us up nicely, IMO

Agreed.

I think the overarching issue with the schedule optic is that CUSA football is just horribly weak from a branding/fan interest perspective. Schools like Western Kentucky and La Tech are probably Top 60 teams this year but just don't move the needle on local fan interest (arguably La Tech will bring a few people).

Of course, this is not a new conversation ... we've just got to find a way to get out of this league in the next 2-5 years or so.

True, but they are good teams nonetheless. We need to give our players and our coaches credit if we win because they'd be big victories. They are both picked to win their respective divisions. We will be underdogs in both games. And as mentioned, we get our two toughest conference games at home. This is a huge advantage for us.

We have no idea whether we'll be underdogs going into those games or not, as it all depends upon how the teams play prior to those games. If we play UT close, and win impressively in our other games, we could very well be favored. Preseason rankings mean nothing until the actual games begin.

(07-27-2015 02:14 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 02:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I tend to not care so much about how others perceive my team. I just want to win and enjoy it for myself and among the rest of the Rice community. I know about Rice's history and it's struggles. Wins are satisfying because of it. That's all that matters to me.

That's you. Some of the rest of us would like to improve our current position and conference affiliation, and we can only do that with improved national prominence.

We're getting ripped on the USC forums for one major reason: CUSA. Not saying it's right, not saying it's wrong; that's just the way it is.

If we were in an even marginally better conference, I doubt their alumni would have much of an issue with the game.

(07-27-2015 04:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We have no idea whether we'll be underdogs going into those games or not, as it all depends upon how the teams play prior to those games. If we play UT close, and win impressively in our other games, we could very well be favored. Preseason rankings mean nothing until the actual games begin.

Not to mention that in year 9 of our staff, walking into a C-USA game expecting to be an underdog before the season starts, is quite ridiculous.

(07-27-2015 03:37 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

Very weak.

As a national draw, the Army home game is the most compelling.

Western K and LaTech are in the middle, followed by Wagner (FCS) and Charlotte (first year FBS, sounds familiar?).

Southern Mississippi should be a name opponent. Hoping that program is back on the upswing.

Interesting turn to this thread that I didn't expect. I still have to wait and see how we play against Wagner. Then the UT game to me is kinda weirdly linked to that first one, to get some sort of indication of how this season will most likely go.

Several parliamentarians have seemed to evolve to thinking that 12-2, and 10-4 seasons are possibilities. In the old days, we were regularly arguing over whether we could ever be 7-5 or 6-6 on a regular basis.

What has remained the same is not having any real concrete consensus of whether we are really that much better, or the competition is really just that much worse. Because many are still unconvinced that a UT or Baylor win is even possible, and that previously lesser-viewed schools like WKU and LaTech are now viewed by some as "powers," it would seem that the balance tips towards the competition being that much worse these days, thus inflating our record.

In the video recently posted of Coach Bailiff saying we want to be ranked in the Top 25, the comment I found most confusing was his assertion that going to bowl games "is hard to do." If roughly two-thirds of teams that step on the field every year go to bowl games, and only one third do not, it would seem it is harder to not go to a bowl game than to go to one these days? The attitude behind Coach Bailiff's statement really, really puzzles me. If he thinks it is really just as hard to go to bowl games now, then perhaps he sets the bar too low across the board in other areas of his coaching. Not everyone is Bear Bryant, I'll definitely agree. But I don't think Bear Bryant thought just going bowling was all that hard for him back then, when there were far, far fewer bowls. Winning, and going to the best ones, sure, but not just going.

Now if that same statement were made by Coach Hatfield during his tenure at Rice, I would 100% agree, and the fact that he was even discussing going to bowl games regularly would instill confidence since they truly were hard to go to then. Even with solid winning records back then Rice was left out of the bowl picture (what was it 7-4?) In today's environment, would not almost all of Hatfield's teams gone bowling? And where would Rice be now if the bowl picture had been inflated as it is today? Would it have made any difference for us, or would we be in the exact same place we are today?

While I am glad that we are now talking about possible double-digit win seasons, I can almost hear the echoes of "well, the defense is just completely new, we have to get to the point we play better defense, we lost a lot of people, we have injuries, we have young recruits, next year will be better, etc, etc......." It seems most Parliamentarians want to see and expect more forward progress at this point. Whatever we have to do this year to move up in national perception and up from this plateau is what I want. I have no real idea of whether that's beat UT then lose a bunch of CUSA gimmes, or the other way around. But whatever it is to get some real, unmistakable forward national perception progress is what I want and really, expect of a coach in his ninth season at a school, unless he has already done it (which he hasn't in our case.)

It's a real shame we ran into Miss State in the Liberty Bowl when we did. A real shame. What were the odds that we'd basically be playing a #1 team in that game? (Who knew?)

A more "normal" Miss State might have been beatable that year, or at least we wouldn't have been made to look as weak as the blowout made us seem. That loss, seeing it in person, then reading about it afterwards in the national press, really made me question the CUSA Championship against Marshall at home. My conclusion, after some commiserating, was that had that game been played at Marshall, we would've probably not gotten the victory that year. I am grateful, and happy we did, but as far as Championships go I'd feel more comfortable with a clear run like TCU and Boise had to erase doubts.

So the posters above who are calling for running the table and leaving no doubts--I agree with you. The biggest thing hampering Rice at this point is not the facilities, or even the crowds at games (which no one really expects of us anyways because we're so small, let's face it), it is the continued doubts and second guessing in the way we are "improving." I'd hope we could leave that behind this year and just be bad-asses ourselves for a change. But I've never liked milquetoast.

Thanks for the comments. I'll continue reading your thoughts. Go Owls!

One thing: Rice did not play a virtual #1 in Mississippi State. MSU was better than 6-5, but far from a top-ten outfit. Georgia Tech kicked MSU's ass in the Orange Bowl, and that was a better MSU team than the one that Rice played.

We got trounced by MSU because, well, an SEC team said "Boo!", and we curled up into a ball. That's on our coaching. I'm almost certain that we had the talent to play better than we did.

Otherwise, I generally agree with what GoodOwl posted. The jury is still out, but I don't know if we can afford for it to be out for much longer. Something has to give so the athletic department and the board can make a concrete decision about how the program is going to really attempt to move forward. It has to be put-up-or-shut-up time for Bailiff if we want to have any realistic chance of improving our standing before the ship sails for good.

(07-27-2015 07:04 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  One thing: Rice did not play a virtual #1 in Mississippi State. MSU was better than 6-5, but far from a top-ten outfit. Georgia Tech kicked MSU's ass in the Orange Bowl.

We got trounced by MSU because, well, an SEC team said "Boo!", and we curled up into a ball. That's on our coaching. I'm almost certain that we had the talent to play better than we did.

Otherwise, I generally agree with what GoodOwl posted. The jury is still out, but I don't know if we can afford for it to be out for much longer. Something has to give so the athletic department and the board can make a concrete decision about how the program is going to really attempt to move forward. It has to be put-up-or-shut-up time for Bailiff if we want to have any realistic chance of improving our standing before the ship sails for good.

Thanks, Weissman. Georgia Tech. If ever there was a non-conference school Our athletic Dept. should push to schedule regularly in football, basketball and baseball it is Georgia Tech. Would do wonders for our national profile, especially if we beat them in their down years, which they do have more often than not in all three major sports. Why we haven't played them basically since the 70s is a mystery to me. (Only one short baseball series in the last decade, if I recall rightly.)

(07-27-2015 07:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  If ever there was a non-conference school Our athletic Dept. should push to schedule regularly in football, basketball and baseball it is Georgia Tech.... Why we haven't played them basically since the 70s is a mystery to me.

I suspect it's not a mystery to Georgia Tech. What is their motivation to schedule Rice? Surely the revenue that our fan base and viewing audience would bring is not much incentive, nor is the opportunity to lose to a school that is not only academically rigorous but also smaller and not P5. From Georgia Tech's point of view, Rice might be one of the least attractive opponents: not much upside for winning, plenty of downside for losing, and not much payoff either way.

I say this not to be defeatist, but simply to remember that scheduling is a two-way negotiation, and that Rice having compelling reasons to schedule School X does not imply that School X has compelling reasons to schedule Rice. I agree that we should try like heck to schedule Georgia Tech and similar opponents, but I have no illusions about the ease of making the effort succeed.

(07-27-2015 09:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 07:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  If ever there was a non-conference school Our athletic Dept. should push to schedule regularly in football, basketball and baseball it is Georgia Tech.... Why we haven't played them basically since the 70s is a mystery to me.

I suspect it's not a mystery to Georgia Tech. What is their motivation to schedule Rice? Surely the revenue that our fan base and viewing audience would bring is not much incentive, nor is the opportunity to lose to a school that is not only academically rigorous but also smaller and not P5. From Georgia Tech's point of view, Rice might be one of the least attractive opponents: not much upside for winning, plenty of downside for losing, and not much payoff either way.

I say this not to be defeatist, but simply to remember that scheduling is a two-way negotiation, and that Rice having compelling reasons to schedule School X does not imply that School X has compelling reasons to schedule Rice. I agree that we should try like heck to schedule Georgia Tech and similar opponents, but I have no illusions about the ease of making the effort succeed.

GaTech has scheduled Tulane in several home-and-home series recently, maybe Rice can squeeze in there.

(07-27-2015 09:09 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 09:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 07:15 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  If ever there was a non-conference school Our athletic Dept. should push to schedule regularly in football, basketball and baseball it is Georgia Tech.... Why we haven't played them basically since the 70s is a mystery to me.

I suspect it's not a mystery to Georgia Tech. What is their motivation to schedule Rice? Surely the revenue that our fan base and viewing audience would bring is not much incentive, nor is the opportunity to lose to a school that is not only academically rigorous but also smaller and not P5. From Georgia Tech's point of view, Rice might be one of the least attractive opponents: not much upside for winning, plenty of downside for losing, and not much payoff either way.

I say this not to be defeatist, but simply to remember that scheduling is a two-way negotiation, and that Rice having compelling reasons to schedule School X does not imply that School X has compelling reasons to schedule Rice. I agree that we should try like heck to schedule Georgia Tech and similar opponents, but I have no illusions about the ease of making the effort succeed.

GaTech has scheduled Tulane in several home-and-home series recently, maybe Rice can squeeze in there.

George, WIOwl brings up a good point about Tulane. I understand the points you made. Don't those same points apply to Northwestern and Vanderbilt and Stanford? Not that we did too well in football with the first two of those recently--hopefully we can beat Stanford next year in football.

I'd just think that GA Tech would have been willing to schedule us in the major three sports more than about once in roughly 40 years. I wonder if we ever really ask them? If we ask Duke and Vandy and Wake Forest, why not ask Tech is all I'm saying. I think there is some shared history between the schools, not to mention the academic profiles are in the same general area (although Rice is broader in overall offerings. Tech seems more highly skewed to engineering and sciences.)

(07-27-2015 05:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 04:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We have no idea whether we'll be underdogs going into those games or not, as it all depends upon how the teams play prior to those games. If we play UT close, and win impressively in our other games, we could very well be favored. Preseason rankings mean nothing until the actual games begin.

Not to mention that in year 9 of our staff, walking into a C-USA game expecting to be an underdog before the season starts, is quite ridiculous.

This is going to make everyone here cringe, but Rice isn't the only CUSA member that's improving. We just won 5 of our 6 bowl games, and we have a couple of schools in the East that many are watching as possible Access Bowl candidates (WKU and Marshall). We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here. The competition is improving along with us. It's going to be a challenge to keep up. There's nothing wrong with being considered an underdog in this conference at anytime. It's actually a good sign.

(07-27-2015 04:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 04:23 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:51 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:45 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

I actually like the home schedule. We play teams we should beat on the road (within conference), and the ones that might be tougher are at home. Sets us up nicely, IMO

Agreed.

I think the overarching issue with the schedule optic is that CUSA football is just horribly weak from a branding/fan interest perspective. Schools like Western Kentucky and La Tech are probably Top 60 teams this year but just don't move the needle on local fan interest (arguably La Tech will bring a few people).

Of course, this is not a new conversation ... we've just got to find a way to get out of this league in the next 2-5 years or so.

True, but they are good teams nonetheless. We need to give our players and our coaches credit if we win because they'd be big victories. They are both picked to win their respective divisions. We will be underdogs in both games. And as mentioned, we get our two toughest conference games at home. This is a huge advantage for us.

We have no idea whether we'll be underdogs going into those games or not, as it all depends upon how the teams play prior to those games. If we play UT close, and win impressively in our other games, we could very well be favored. Preseason rankings mean nothing until the actual games begin.

July lines are based on preseason assessments. As actual data piles up, lines change.

Playing UT close won't move lines much. It's still a loss. Winning will move them some.

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

(07-27-2015 09:09 PM)WIowl Wrote:  GaTech has scheduled Tulane in several home-and-home series recently, maybe Rice can squeeze in there.

GT has far more history with Tulane than with Rice. They were both in the SEC together, and both left about the same time.

The major point is that scheduling is a two-way street. We can't play them unless they are willing to play us. The answer to a lot of the "why don't we play so-and-so" questions is that so-and-so doesn't want to play us.

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

(07-26-2015 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 05:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Picking between possible 12-2 seasons is not easy.
Not saying I prefer one 12-2 season over another, but, for the ones who would rather see UT and Baylor wins among the 12, which games would you prefer the 2 in?
If we win those early two, my expectations for the season rise, and any subsequent loss will doubly be a disappointment. If we win at UT, and again at BU, ANY subsequent loss will be terrible.
so within the constraints of exactly 12 wins and exactly two losses, why are losses to, say, LTU and WKU better than losses to UT and BU? Or losses to Marshall in the CC game and TCU in the HOD bowl, following a 12-0 regular season? Whatever gains we made in perception in September would be lost in December.

All 12-2 seasons are 12-2 seasons. That means they are better than 11-3 seasons and worse than 13-1 seasons. The only possible exception would be that an 11-3 season where the losses were out of conference so that we still won the conference championship might arguably be better than a 12-2 where we did not win the conference championship. Among the hypotheticals you list, the first two would both mean that we got to the CC game (since we played 14) and won it and our bowl, whereas the third means we didn't win the conference or our bowl, so I'd rate the third one worst, and probably the one with losses to TU and BU ahead of the one with two conference losses (since that would truly place our conference championship in jeopardy, making 11-2 probably more likely than 12-2). One note, last year after losing to ND and aTm, there were still pundits who had us in the running for the G5 BCS slot (whatever they call it, I think you know what I mean) if we had run the table. I would think the same would happen if we lost to TU and BU and then we ran the table in 2015. Of course, the problem with that for last year was that an unrun table didn't get it done. Regardless of the TU and BU outcomes, let's not leave the rest of the table unrun this year.

You are what your record says you are. -- Bill Parcells

Yeah, but we were discussing 12-2 seasons in particular. Not possible 11-3 or 14-1 or 10-3. Just 12-2. Exactly 14 games, with exactly 12 wins and exactly 2 losses. if they are all the same, how can one be the "worst", as you say.

I don't see any of us being happy with a 12-2 season that includes losses to both UT and BU, even though that would mean an eleven game winning streak to end the season, another conference champion, and a win in the HOD bowl. But we would have missed our two big opportunities at a signature win. But also I don't see any of us being happy with a 12-2 season in which we win both of those game but lose two later,, probably to teams we should have beaten, whether or not those are the last two or two of the conference games, or one of each.

The only 12-2 mix I see that might bring a smidgen of satisfaction for a portion of the Rice fans might be beating UT, losing to BU and the CC or bowl.

In a 12-2 season, designating a game as a W means another must be designated as a L. It is zero-sum if we are to finish exactly 12 and 2. If I am to pick two to lose, out of 12 regular season games, a CC, and a bowl, I pick BU for one. I can't decide on the other. Anybody have two that make the ideal loss list in a 12-2 season? Anybody picking LTU and the bowl, or what?

I disagree with the bold.... depending on how good those two teams end up being. If they both end up in the top 10, then I suspect we're beating someone in the HOD bowl (actually, we're probably winning the access bowl, but that is beside the point) who is 'of note' themselves and THAT would be our signature win. If Baylor is good and UT spotty, we're probably still playing a team of SOME note that is likely a signature win in a bowl game. If both Baylor and UT end up being mediocre for p5's... i.e. somewhere between 25 and 45 and we lose 'bad', we're likely playing another g5 team or a 6-6, barely qualifying p5.

The 'ideal' loss list means losing 'close' to the two best teams on your schedule. In CUSA, that is LIKELY, but not guaranteed to be OOC. I'd take losing to ultimate N.C. Baylor in the regular season and then losing to #8 whomever in a good game in the access bowl as my 'preferred' two losses.... meaning we ran CUSA and beat Texas... We would certainly be ranked in the top 20, and perhaps #10.


This is what people have to understand. With CUSA, we have a CHANCE to run the table if we are a top 50 caliber team. We should certainly win our other 2 OOC games leaving only Baylor, Texas and our Bowl opponent as teams that could beat us and keep us from a high ranking. The better they are and the closer we play them, win or lose, the better WE look. If they are all top 10 and we lose to all three of them, we're still probably top 15.

Sure, if we are top 15, some will lament that we had our chances to be top 10... but such is the nature of sports.

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

(07-28-2015 10:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 09:53 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 08:35 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-28-2015 07:46 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  We need to quit being so Rice-centric around here.

True. Quixotic, but true.

I'm confused. This is a Rice message board, right? Centric - adj. 1. At, of, or having a center. I see nothing wrong with The Parliament being Rice-centric. If we aren't centered on Rice, why not disband and join a generic message board?

Trying going to coogfans or TexAgs and telling them they need to not be so UH-centric or TAMU-centric, respectively. I'd suggest you duck when you do.

I think the centrism Afflicted is referring to is the delusion held by many on this board that Rice is important and influential in D1 athletics, as evinced by those who seem to believe that the reason Rice isn't on another school's schedule is that our athletic director has neglected to call his collegue at that school and instruct him to include Rice.

Almost. The comment made by Antarius was that we shouldn't be underdogs in CUSA at this point in Bailiff's tenure as coach. That is shortsighted and "Rice-centric." It's not just about Rice. What many Bailiff detractors here fail to acknowledge is that the conference members around us continue to improve. They aren't standing still. If we come up short or fail to fulfill expectations, it's not necessarily just due to what Rice isn't doing well, but also a result of what others are doing well. My feeling is that the Bailiff haters among us are in denial that the conference is improving. It now has six solid football programs, and Southern Mississippi and Old Dominion aren't far behind. Within five years, we very well could be the best G5 conference.