(10-05-2015 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Well, since Rice is the underdog, FAU is the better team so a loss to them is understandable. (Do I need a /sarc tag? Better put one.)
Frizzy - I know you are kidding, but I am afraid that we will hear this much like we did with WKU.
Hope not. Still not clear on how we are 3 point underdogs to a team that went 3-9 last year.
Look at it from the bettors perspective. Contrary to popular wisdom, the people that drop the kind of money that can move a line don't rely on blind luck. They do their homework. For an obscure game like Rice-FAU, the information available is stat sheets from previous games. Well, on paper, Rice has nonexistent pass defense and is averaging less than 28 points a game against FBS opposition. Those statistics indicate a probable loss, so that's how the bets are going. Doesn't mean the bettors are right, but they go with likelihoods.
(10-05-2015 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Well, since Rice is the underdog, FAU is the better team so a loss to them is understandable. (Do I need a /sarc tag? Better put one.)
Frizzy - I know you are kidding, but I am afraid that we will hear this much like we did with WKU.
Hope not. Still not clear on how we are 3 point underdogs to a team that went 3-9 last year.
Ant - it is a new year. I'm sure plenty of teams said the same thing about us back in 2008 after we had gone 3-9.
It would be a better argument to use their current record of 1-3.
I just hate these general arguments about how we should be favored against teams because of who they are, because that is what everyone says about teams that aren't historically successful (like us).
But I know how we are underdogs, because we laid a giant egg with our play this week - that is what is unacceptable.
That isn't my point. My point is that I keep hearing "historical levels of success" "3 bowls in a row" "we went to a bowl, stop whining" etc etc etc about how we have supposedly turned into a better football team.
And then we open as underdogs to 1-3 FAU.
This ties back to my point in another thread that whether we go 3-9 or 9-3, the world doesn't care. And touting our bowl success is simply a way to make ourselves feel better as the ship continues to take on water.
(10-05-2015 02:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: A lot to criticize about Saturday. Our opponent was not one. They are not Ohio State, but WKU's only loss this year was to a Big 10 team that played within one score of Ohio State on Saturday. I doubt they end the year outside of the Top 50 with their QB.
The name WKU may not mean much to us, but their players deserve more respect based on what they've done this year (and last). They look like the second best team on our schedule. I certainly HOPE they are.
The point is, they were #57 coming into the game. They came to our house and embarrassed us 49-10.
If this was a one off, then sure, I'd accept that. But we also got smacked upside the head by a very good Baylor team (understandable) and an absolutely pathetic 1-4 Texas team (not so much).
Now we are underdogs to FAU. All I ask is, what will it take for a loss to not be acceptable? WKU is good, but not that good. Not 49-10 beatdown at home good.
That is literally NOT the point. It does not matter if they were #57 coming into the game (be that high or low). Their ranking is not why the loss was so bad, so you start to muddle your point about the lose being bad by even bringing it up, because it was not really WKU who embarrassed us, it was our team who did. By bringing up how they were/are ranked, you get away from how poor we played because it opens up a very debatable point (that you're wrong on).
The loss was so bad because of how bad the team looked. Almost every turnover we had (4/5) was not forced by WKU, it was forced by absolutely abhorrent play by our team. We looked listless. We looked lost. At least against Baylor, you saw a team that started strong and fought, but was just obviously outmatched. While WKU is probably better than that #57 ranking they came in with, you saw some of the most boneheaded mistakes and plays I've ever seen a Rice team make.
This was the first game I think I have ever left early because of our performance (and I was one of the 10 students who stayed for our awesome comeback against UTEP in 2007). This game will either be another Memphis or a nail in the coffin, and my money is on it being the nail.
I think they are both complimentary points. One, we played like absolute crap; no way to sugar coat that. Two, the rankings show that WKU isn't Baylor and had no business beating Rice by 39 points at home even if we had looked better.
I bring up the ranking to head off the "Doughty is the best QB in the country", "WKU is way better than we think they are" comments. We heard these after ODU last year with Heinecke and how awesome they actually are, when in reality, Sagarin paints a very different picture.
They aren't complimentary points if one is wrong. WKU IS a better team than any of us give them credit for, and the only reason some of us don't want to give them credit is because they are WKU. So trying to argue what they were ranked and how that makes the loss "worse" obscures that fact that it wasn't the quality of the opponent but the quality of our play that caused us to lose in such a poor fashion. I honestly don't care about the score of this game - that isn't what made me leave. It was our performance that was dreadful.
We should be measuring our performance relative to how our team performs for the most part. Sometimes who we play comes into consideration (like with Baylor), but we don't need to even bring up our opponent for this game to know it stunk.
Also, Heincke was a better QB than any of us gave him credit for before the game. There's a reason he is in the NFL now.
(10-05-2015 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Well, since Rice is the underdog, FAU is the better team so a loss to them is understandable. (Do I need a /sarc tag? Better put one.)
Frizzy - I know you are kidding, but I am afraid that we will hear this much like we did with WKU.
Hope not. Still not clear on how we are 3 point underdogs to a team that went 3-9 last year.
Ant - it is a new year. I'm sure plenty of teams said the same thing about us back in 2008 after we had gone 3-9.
It would be a better argument to use their current record of 1-3.
I just hate these general arguments about how we should be favored against teams because of who they are, because that is what everyone says about teams that aren't historically successful (like us).
But I know how we are underdogs, because we laid a giant egg with our play this week - that is what is unacceptable.
That isn't my point. My point is that I keep hearing "historical levels of success" "3 bowls in a row" "we went to a bowl, stop whining" etc etc etc about how we have supposedly turned into a better football team.
And then we open as underdogs to 1-3 FAU.
This ties back to my point in another thread that whether we go 3-9 or 9-3, the world doesn't care. And touting our bowl success is simply a way to make ourselves feel better as the ship continues to take on water.
So, if that isn't your point, why bring it up? If your point isn't to try and argue that a team's record last year is some indication of their quality this year, why make that a point?
My point, so that I'm clear, is that you can make so many solid arguments about the state of the team after Saturday's game using the results on the field, that you don't need to rely on using our spread against FAU to do that.
(10-05-2015 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: While WKU is probably better than that #57 ranking they came in with, you saw some of the most boneheaded mistakes and plays I've ever seen a Rice team make.
You haven't been watching Rice Football very long.
(10-05-2015 10:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: While WKU is probably better than that #57 ranking they came in with, you saw some of the most boneheaded mistakes and plays I've ever seen a Rice team make.
You haven't been watching Rice Football very long.
(10-05-2015 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Well, since Rice is the underdog, FAU is the better team so a loss to them is understandable. (Do I need a /sarc tag? Better put one.)
Frizzy - I know you are kidding, but I am afraid that we will hear this much like we did with WKU.
Hope not. Still not clear on how we are 3 point underdogs to a team that went 3-9 last year.
Ant - it is a new year. I'm sure plenty of teams said the same thing about us back in 2008 after we had gone 3-9.
It would be a better argument to use their current record of 1-3.
I just hate these general arguments about how we should be favored against teams because of who they are, because that is what everyone says about teams that aren't historically successful (like us).
But I know how we are underdogs, because we laid a giant egg with our play this week - that is what is unacceptable.
That isn't my point. My point is that I keep hearing "historical levels of success" "3 bowls in a row" "we went to a bowl, stop whining" etc etc etc about how we have supposedly turned into a better football team.
And then we open as underdogs to 1-3 FAU.
This ties back to my point in another thread that whether we go 3-9 or 9-3, the world doesn't care. And touting our bowl success is simply a way to make ourselves feel better as the ship continues to take on water.
Then you'll get your way and Bailiff's contract won't be renewed after 2018. The ship will continue to take on water until it sinks. He'll be gone, you'll feel vindicated, and you'll get to tell everyone "I told you so."
(10-05-2015 10:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You've got me there.
I wish I hadn't posted that. It's not very relevant to the point you were making. But for me, on top of being frustrated by Saturday, this feels a lot like Groundhog Day. This program, for all the talk of culture change and continuity, keeps having to re-learn the same lessons over and over.
I find it amazing how many people are saying 'they expected a loss' in this game. SOme of those same people referred to the 1980's as the 'nadir' of Rice football, yet we generally performed pretty close to our expectations then as well. Of course, 4+ of the teams on our schedule were ranked in the top 25 and sometimes 8+ were ranked in the top 50 back then as well, but that is another discussion.
The problem isn't that we lost. The problem is that we were once again, completely out-manned. We can argue about specifically where the break-downs or mistakes or whatever else was... but the fact is that we are now ranked as the #118 or so team. Had we lost 'close', or looked remotely competitive, we wouldn't be.
You can't lose 49-10 (and let's be honest... it could have been far worse if WKU had wanted...) and act as if it was a 14-10 loss or a 49-45 loss. We weren't even in their same league... and Sagarin proves that.
I'm going from memory, but as I recall there are now 4-5 teams from CUSA ranked in the top 80 and the rest are ranked +110 and higher. We're in that second group.
Any of you who think we are about where you expected us to be, is #118 about where you expected us to be?
To start the season, I think this was a 70+% probability of a Rice win. It is now a pick-em to slight advantage for FIU.... and it isn't because FIU has outperformed their pre-season expectations.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 10:46 AM by Hambone10.)
Betting lines are based on many factors and "historical success" or "last year's record" are not in any of them. Betting lines are based on the current season, recent games performances, injuries, current starters' situations, etc... They are fluid for a reason.
We are dogs at FAU because we have lost by 53 and 39 in the last 2 games, not because Vegas sees a 1-3 FAU team as a "better program". We are dogs because we benched our starting QB in the 2Q and no one really knows who will start on Saturday. We are underdogs because we have played fairly poor football for 2 straight weeks.
FYI: These are not excuses, just my own personal explanation.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 10:48 AM by Holder_Owl_84.)
I didn't mention the QB controversy because I don't think the bettors would be aware of it since it's not getting press coverage; but yeah, mid-season indecision at the QB position generally makes a struggling offense even worse.
(10-05-2015 10:38 AM)Afflicted Wrote: Then you'll get your way and Bailiff's contract won't be renewed after 2018. The ship will continue to take on water until it sinks. He'll be gone, you'll feel vindicated, and you'll get to tell everyone "I told you so."
That's not the goal. Not mine anyway, and I doubt it's Ant's or anyone else's either.
The goal, to be clear, is for Rice to be in the Top25 soon and to beat Top teams like Texas (okay, but they used to be, and will be again one way or another) and Baylor and A&M, etc.. about half the time we play them and clean up in this G5 conference until we can somehow punch our way out. To reasonably fill our stadium with both Rice and non-Rice football fans by providing a viable, pleasant, motivating, entertaining afternoon or evening of Div. I football, including exciting quality play on the field win, lose or draw.
I think we'll have that kind of thing going on in the next few years in Basketball. Baseball has had it for a while, though recently at a slightly reduced level. Football is the doughnut hole and we've got to find a way to fill it, soon.
(10-05-2015 10:44 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: I find it amazing how many people are saying 'they expected a loss' in this game. SOme of those same people referred to the 1980's as the 'nadir' of Rice football, yet we generally performed pretty close to our expectations then as well. Of course, 4+ of the teams on our schedule were ranked in the top 25 and sometimes 8+ were ranked in the top 50 back then as well, but that is another discussion.
The problem isn't that we lost. The problem is that we were once again, completely out-manned. We can argue about specifically where the break-downs or mistakes or whatever else was... but the fact is that we are now ranked as the #118 or so team. Had we lost 'close', or looked remotely competitive, we wouldn't be.
You can't lose 49-10 (and let's be honest... it could have been far worse if WKU had wanted...) and act as if it was a 14-10 loss or a 49-45 loss. We weren't even in their same league... and Sagarin proves that.
I'm going from memory, but as I recall there are now 4-5 teams from CUSA ranked in the top 80 and the rest are ranked +110 and higher. We're in that second group.
Any of you who think we are about where you expected us to be, is #118 about where you expected us to be?
To start the season, I think this was a 70+% probability of a Rice win. It is now a pick-em to slight advantage for FIU.... and it isn't because FIU has outperformed their pre-season expectations.
I don't expect to lose games like this in Season 9 of a coach touting "unprecedented, historical success." I expected to win this game. I suspected we were in trouble after the North Texas game. That's right. To me, that game foretold more worries, because North Texas could have beaten us with just a few more big plays, like they showed they had in them.
And I don't want us to lose, but I don't want us to accept this coach's BS excuses even more. It seems that getting destroyed is about the only way things might change. If we were already in a P5 it wouldn't matter so much. We'd be getting the check. But we are not. Though I haven't been a fan of the idea, even somehow moving to the AAC is now looking like a better option these days. CUSA is just the wrong association for Rice. FAU is a "huge game" for us nowadays. That's telling. It matters. Time is of the essence. we have to change something big in football. My vote has been the head Coach goes. Don't know if that's "realistic" but it's my opinion.
I'm actually worried about the FAU game this weekend. I can't believe I'm saying that. We're Rice, we can do a lot better than this, can't we?
(10-05-2015 10:38 AM)Afflicted Wrote: Then you'll get your way and Bailiff's contract won't be renewed after 2018. The ship will continue to take on water until it sinks. He'll be gone, you'll feel vindicated, and you'll get to tell everyone "I told you so."
That's not the goal. Not mine anyway, and I doubt it's Ant's or anyone else's either.
The goal, to be clear, is for Rice to be in the Top25 soon and to beat Top teams like Texas (okay, but they used to be, and will be again one way or another) and Baylor and A&M, etc.. about half the time we play them and clean up in this G5 conference until we can somehow punch our way out. To reasonably fill our stadium with both Rice and non-Rice football fans by providing a viable, pleasant, motivating, entertaining afternoon or evening of Div. I football, including exciting quality play on the field win, lose or draw.
I think we'll have that kind of thing going on in the next few years in Basketball. Baseball has had it for a while, though recently at a slightly reduced level. Football is the doughnut hole and we've got to find a way to fill it, soon.
This is the part that absolutely isn't happening. I don't care what they're ranked, or what we're ranked, or what Sagarin thinks we may be ranked, or what the betting line is, or what the country thinks of our program (hint: they don't). What matters is that we went out there and looked absolutely awful and had no pride, no motivation, and no spark. It's easy to complain about students attendance at the games, but why would a non sports inclined Rice student ever want to go to a home game when we play like this? It's a waste of a Saturday afternoon. The games are dreadfully boring and we're getting destroyed. Maybe a few more would come if the players weren't so embarrassed by our performance they don't even stay for the alma mater after the game.
My problem with Bailiff is that it simply doesn't feel like he's doing anything to change this culture. Every week is the same mediocre game management, same mediocre plays, same mediocre schemes, and same result. I don't feel any spark or excitement. When I think or rice football, I mostly just think of "gray" as that is was we are: dull and devoid of intrigue. I don't really care how we do next week, I just pray we do something different.
(10-05-2015 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: You had me up to the AAC argument.
Being an AAC cellar-dweller won't help anything.
See my sig line:
I would respectfully disagree here. If we want to improve, we absolutely need to play a (slightly) upgraded schedule of teams ... going 6-6/7-5 all the time against this current lot does nothing but continue to mask the problem.
Would this season be a complete mess if we were playing East Carolina, Memphis, Houston, Tulsa, et al? Probably. But at least we would have a clearer vision of where we stand vs. where we want to be. We're probably about on par with SMU this season, but one can clearly argue that their near-term potential is much greater with their new staff.
(And everyone better mentally prepare that UH has a decent chance this year of competing for the Access Bowl spot. They almost cracked the Top 25 this week.)
If we're afraid of being "cellar-dwellers" against teams that were our peers as recently as three years ago ... than this is a different, more troubling conversation.
Someone - I think Wiessman - made this point the other day, and it is a good one ... CFB teams tend to recruit and perform over time to the level of their conference peers. This year may be the first indication that we're headed in that direction.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 11:56 AM by Orange County Owl.)
(10-05-2015 11:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Problems internal to an organization do not change with a change of venue.
Fair enough, but at least they can be identified publicly as problems.
At this point, the outside world superficially sees this staff as a "success" having gone to three straight bowl games. The reality is that we're probably a 3-4 win team in the AAC this year - that might make this season more uncomfortable, but it would at least shine a flashlight on the problem.
It's the other way around. If a program can't excel in a bad conference, then on switching to a mediocre conference without making internal changes the program will be at the bottom. The model for this wrt Rice isn't UH, which changed a lot of things. The models are SMU and Tulane.
Tulane doesn't go to lousy bowls so to the public they don't even exist any more. That's Rice's future if we jump conferences thinking it will magically fix the problems.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:00 PM by Frizzy Owl.)
(10-05-2015 11:58 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: The models are SMU ...
Exactly my point. SMU just went out and invested in a new staff and is clearly further down the track of fixing (or at least attempting to fix) their program. One can argue that we would never invest that much in a head coach - which is a fair point - but that's not the core issue. The issue is that they identified their problem and sought out about fixing it by bringing in Chad Morris, who was a high profile hire. Meanwhile, Bailiff is deemed a "success".
(Of course, they did the same thing with Larry Brown, but never mind that ... )
Tulane appears to be a lost cause regardless. And no one thinks that changing conferences will "magically fix our problems" ... but it will give us a little more ability (and pressure) to fix them ourselves.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:04 PM by Orange County Owl.)
