(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It was a lousy crowd, very small, but it was not completely empty. The pictures posted on this site were from the Stadium Club in the upper deck looking down at the East side.

There were fans on the lower west side who came out to support the Owls. I was there, with my son and a friend of his. Not many fans given the record of the opponent, the weather, the holiday weekend. It was a bad crowd, no doubt, but not completely empty.

OK, if we want to play the semantics game, then you are correct, the stadium was not "completely empty". That was in fact an exaggeration. Below is a shot of the stands from immediately before kickoff. I would characterize this attendance as "darn near empty".

And even with the weather, both the R Room and Stadium Club were much, much less crowded than usual.

(11-29-2015 10:11 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

Wow.

(11-29-2015 10:26 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And even with the weather, both the R Room and Stadium Club were much, much less crowded than usual.

That's me below the cameraman!

(11-29-2015 02:58 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 01:33 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Then front the money to buyout. We all know the school doesn't really care about athletics. And I'm interested to see the REALISTIC suggestions for replacement that would do any better.

....So don't tell me that it's impossible to find a coach who can do better than Bailiff -- because we had one on our staff already.

And to me, this is yet another argument to support the fact that our problems are larger than the coach(es). We had Herman; we had Beaty; and yet we weren't substantially any different then....

(11-29-2015 11:10 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 02:58 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 01:33 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Then front the money to buyout. We all know the school doesn't really care about athletics. And I'm interested to see the REALISTIC suggestions for replacement that would do any better.

....So don't tell me that it's impossible to find a coach who can do better than Bailiff -- because we had one on our staff already.

And to me, this is yet another argument to support the fact that our problems are larger than the coach(es). We had Herman; we had Beaty; and yet we weren't substantially any different then....

Repeat after me-- the fish stinks from the head down. Coordinators take their cue and direction from the head coach. The problem was not Herman or Beatty or Thurmond.

(11-29-2015 11:10 PM)Barney Wrote:  And to me, this is yet another argument to support the fact that our problems are larger than the coach(es). We had Herman; we had Beaty; and yet we weren't substantially any different then....

I agree with you. Problems exist with the support from the institution, the fan base, the coaches, the facilities, and the marketing strategy. Changing the coaching staff does not fix the other problems. A multi-faceted plan is required to turn the ship around here. A strategy consulting firm like McKinsey is expensive, but this is the type of project that they could add value to, IMO. What won't work is continuing to maintain the status quo -- I think deep down there are many administrators who don't care for the football program and know that just maintaining the status quo will result in continued atrophy and a deteriorating product which will ultimately lead to its extinction. I am encouraged in that Bobby Tudor is the Chair of the Board of Trustees -- no one is more passionate about Rice sports than he is.

But changing the head coach could provide the spark needed to create momentum to address the other problems. I think that has to be step 1, because changing the other areas first doesn't have the same immediate, visible impact. We need momentum -- right now we don't have anything close to it. Interest in the football program is low.

(11-29-2015 06:01 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  For ease of lookup, I'm adopting Massey's SOS here (not the Massey composite, the actual Massey ratings):

2015: 125th
2014: 79
2013: 87
2012: 105
2011: 63
2010: 93
2009: 84
2008: 87
2007: 114
2006: 78
2005: 73

So, this year's schedule is the weakest of the last decade, but not drastically so. If you want to go back to SWC SOS, more power to you, but I'm not sure how comparing now to 1988 (or 1958, for that matter) helps the conversation.

Running a simple linear regression on this, the trend is a drop of 1.8 SOS spots per year; however, the (r^2) value of this trend is ~0.11, suggesting that the trend here is very, very weak.

This analysis needs to look at a couple of items differently:
1. What is the quality of teams that we actually defeated in those years?
2. You need to pull out the OOC body bag games to get a clearer picture of our SoS, since those are considered 'preseason' games by the coaching staff. Having a very strong A&M team, Notre Dame, and Baylor over the last few seasons is making the SoS look better, but the reality is we played a few impossibly hard games and then had a long run against some of America's worst teams.

(11-29-2015 10:11 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It was a lousy crowd, very small, but it was not completely empty. The pictures posted on this site were from the Stadium Club in the upper deck looking down at the East side.

There were fans on the lower west side who came out to support the Owls. I was there, with my son and a friend of his. Not many fans given the record of the opponent, the weather, the holiday weekend. It was a bad crowd, no doubt, but not completely empty.

OK, if we want to play the semantics game, then you are correct, the stadium was not "completely empty". That was in fact an exaggeration. Below is a shot of the stands from immediately before kickoff. I would characterize this attendance as "darn near empty".

Definitely a very bad crowd. But you can't see the majority of the lower west from this view. That's where most of the fans were sitting.

(Plus the Stadium Club and R Room. Per Walt, lower numbers there as well, and that's undoubtedly NOT hyperbole.)

But they had to keep making hot chocolate throughout the 3 quarters the concessions were open, and there were lines at Prince's at halftime (albeit much shorter than normal, but there was a wait).

Key point wasn't that it wasn't very bad attendance. It certainly was. I've just been at other late November gates with similar crowds over the years (decades now).

(11-30-2015 12:28 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:11 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It was a lousy crowd, very small, but it was not completely empty. The pictures posted on this site were from the Stadium Club in the upper deck looking down at the East side.

There were fans on the lower west side who came out to support the Owls. I was there, with my son and a friend of his. Not many fans given the record of the opponent, the weather, the holiday weekend. It was a bad crowd, no doubt, but not completely empty.

OK, if we want to play the semantics game, then you are correct, the stadium was not "completely empty". That was in fact an exaggeration. Below is a shot of the stands from immediately before kickoff. I would characterize this attendance as "darn near empty".

Definitely a very bad crowd. But you can't see the majority of the lower west from this view. That's where most of the fans were sitting.

(Plus the Stadium Club and R Room. Per Walt, lower numbers there as well, and that's undoubtedly NOT hyperbole.)

But they had to keep making hot chocolate throughout the 3 quarters the concessions were open, and there were lines at Prince's at halftime (albeit much shorter than normal, but there was a wait).

Key point wasn't that it wasn't very bad attendance. It certainly was. I've just been at other late November gates with similar crowds over the years (decades now).

So, don't expect more because it's been crappy before? Wow, we've hit the lows we've managed before. That's progress....

(11-30-2015 12:28 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:11 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It was a lousy crowd, very small, but it was not completely empty. The pictures posted on this site were from the Stadium Club in the upper deck looking down at the East side.

There were fans on the lower west side who came out to support the Owls. I was there, with my son and a friend of his. Not many fans given the record of the opponent, the weather, the holiday weekend. It was a bad crowd, no doubt, but not completely empty.

OK, if we want to play the semantics game, then you are correct, the stadium was not "completely empty". That was in fact an exaggeration. Below is a shot of the stands from immediately before kickoff. I would characterize this attendance as "darn near empty".

Definitely a very bad crowd. But you can't see the majority of the lower west from this view. That's where most of the fans were sitting.

(Plus the Stadium Club and R Room. Per Walt, lower numbers there as well, and that's undoubtedly NOT hyperbole.)

But they had to keep making hot chocolate throughout the 3 quarters the concessions were open, and there were lines at Prince's at halftime (albeit much shorter than normal, but there was a wait).

Key point wasn't that it wasn't very bad attendance. It certainly was. I've just been at other late November gates with similar crowds over the years (decades now).

I give up. You will find a way to defend Bailiff even it means telling us that they were empty because the folks were in line to get Chick Fil A.

This speech tells me it's highly unlikely that his players would quit on DB, which is something his harshest critics have tried to claim. Some fans may have quit on him, not his players.

The only difference I see in attendance now compared to when I was a student, or compared to before Bailiff, is that we used to play old SWC schools before. If a different coach can get us into a better conference, then attendance might improve, otherwise, I don't think a "more exciting" coach makes a big difference with attendance when playing Charlotte. There's maybe a dozen fans that refuse to go to games only because of our coach. The rest of our few regular fans didn't show because it was cold and we played Charlotte. The record matters, but we need a coach to do more than win the conference or 10+ wins to attract big crowds, evidently. A different style makes little difference unless we're a lot better or playing familiar or better opponents. If we care about the perception of the crowds at HRS, we should find a way to switch the camera angle to the side where our home fans sit.

UH is 10x larger than Rice, in enrollment/alumni. When they're ranked they can get good crowds vs a Navy, but when they're not, their crowds against Uconn and company are not good. They can get 40,000 butts in the stands if all their students show up. We'd get about 6,000. No comparison.

(11-30-2015 12:43 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  This speech tells me it's highly unlikely that his players would quit on DB, which is something his harshest critics have tried to claim. Some fans may have quit on him, not his players.

The only difference I see in attendance now compared to when I was a student, or compared to before Bailiff, is that we used to play old SWC schools before. If a different coach can get us into a better conference, then attendance might improve, otherwise, I don't think a "more exciting" coach makes a big difference with attendance when playing Charlotte. There's maybe a dozen fans that refuse to go to games only because of our coach. The rest of our few regular fans didn't show because it was cold and we played Charlotte. The record matters, but we need a coach to do more than win the conference or 10+ wins to attract big crowds, evidently. A different style makes little difference unless we're a lot better or playing familiar or better opponents. If we care about the perception of the crowds at HRS, we should find a way to switch the camera angle to the side where our home fans sit.

UH is 10x larger than Rice, in enrollment/alumni. When they're ranked they can get good crowds vs a Navy, but when they're not, their crowds against Uconn and company are not good. They can get 40,000 butts in the stands if all their students show up. We'd get about 6,000. No comparison.

Don't jump to that conclusion. No question many of the departing Seniors feel that way, as do those from the previous 2 - 3 Senior classes. However, I have heard more than a few whispers that this is not necessarily the case with the underclassmen; particularly those in the last 2 - 3 recruiting classes (and even Holder had insinuated as much in his post from a couple weeks ago calling them out for not having bought into the program and not giving leaving everything on the field).

(11-30-2015 12:43 AM)Buho00 Wrote:  This speech tells me it's highly unlikely that his players would quit on DB, which is something his harshest critics have tried to claim. Some fans may have quit on him, not his players.

The only difference I see in attendance now compared to when I was a student, or compared to before Bailiff, is that we used to play old SWC schools before. If a different coach can get us into a better conference, then attendance might improve, otherwise, I don't think a "more exciting" coach makes a big difference with attendance when playing Charlotte. There's maybe a dozen fans that refuse to go to games only because of our coach. The rest of our few regular fans didn't show because it was cold and we played Charlotte. The record matters, but we need a coach to do more than win the conference or 10+ wins to attract big crowds, evidently. A different style makes little difference unless we're a lot better or playing familiar or better opponents. If we care about the perception of the crowds at HRS, we should find a way to switch the camera angle to the side where our home fans sit.

UH is 10x larger than Rice, in enrollment/alumni. When they're ranked they can get good crowds vs a Navy, but when they're not, their crowds against Uconn and company are not good. They can get 40,000 butts in the stands if all their students show up. We'd get about 6,000. No comparison.

That's one player who has every reason to be grateful to his coach. You heard him say "no one else gave me a chance but this man did" That's awesome and he has every reason to thank him. That's not the case for every player.'

If the players did not quit then they were poorly coached because the fundamentals and hustle was not there.
IMO it was a combination - players were not well coached (i.e. DJ year) and at some point they lost their motivation since nothing changed from a coaching standpoint. The offense was once again slow. If they tracked timeout usage, I guarantee we would rank in the top ten. The beauty is that we would use all of our timeouts in the first and third quarter.

(11-30-2015 12:43 AM)KTOWL Wrote:  

(11-30-2015 12:28 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 10:11 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 03:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  It was a lousy crowd, very small, but it was not completely empty. The pictures posted on this site were from the Stadium Club in the upper deck looking down at the East side.

There were fans on the lower west side who came out to support the Owls. I was there, with my son and a friend of his. Not many fans given the record of the opponent, the weather, the holiday weekend. It was a bad crowd, no doubt, but not completely empty.

OK, if we want to play the semantics game, then you are correct, the stadium was not "completely empty". That was in fact an exaggeration. Below is a shot of the stands from immediately before kickoff. I would characterize this attendance as "darn near empty".

Definitely a very bad crowd. But you can't see the majority of the lower west from this view. That's where most of the fans were sitting.

(Plus the Stadium Club and R Room. Per Walt, lower numbers there as well, and that's undoubtedly NOT hyperbole.)

But they had to keep making hot chocolate throughout the 3 quarters the concessions were open, and there were lines at Prince's at halftime (albeit much shorter than normal, but there was a wait).

Key point wasn't that it wasn't very bad attendance. It certainly was. I've just been at other late November gates with similar crowds over the years (decades now).

I give up. You will find a way to defend Bailiff even it means telling us that they were empty because the folks were in line to get Chick Fil A.

Really wasn't a line ever at Chick-Fil-A. Hot chocolate and pretzels were at Prince's and hot chocolate seemed to be very popular.

As you walked around, what did you see?

Bob's speech has over 500,000 views already on You Tube. Let's please just celebrate him and the rest of the seniors' contribution to the program.

(11-30-2015 12:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Don't jump to that conclusion. No question many of the departing Seniors feel that way, as do those from the previous 2 - 3 Senior classes. However, I have heard more than a few whispers that this is not necessarily the case with the underclassmen; particularly those in the last 2 - 3 recruiting classes (and even Holder had insinuated as much in his post from a couple weeks ago calling them out for not having bought into the program and not giving leaving everything on the field).

It is not the players' job to buy into the program. It's the coaches' job to sell them the program.

Steps to success:
1. Have a plan
2. Sell the plan to every stakeholder
3. Execute the plan

I don't know how you do 2 without 1, and I don't know what 1 is except, "recruit better and hope to God it works." And I don't quite know how you sell, "We're going to win because we are building an EZF so we can recruit somebody better than you." Nor, for that matter, how or why anyone would buy into that.

(11-29-2015 11:42 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2015 06:01 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  For ease of lookup, I'm adopting Massey's SOS here (not the Massey composite, the actual Massey ratings):

2015: 125th
2014: 79
2013: 87
2012: 105
2011: 63
2010: 93
2009: 84
2008: 87
2007: 114
2006: 78
2005: 73

So, this year's schedule is the weakest of the last decade, but not drastically so. If you want to go back to SWC SOS, more power to you, but I'm not sure how comparing now to 1988 (or 1958, for that matter) helps the conversation.

Running a simple linear regression on this, the trend is a drop of 1.8 SOS spots per year; however, the (r^2) value of this trend is ~0.11, suggesting that the trend here is very, very weak.

This analysis needs to look at a couple of items differently:
1. What is the quality of teams that we actually defeated in those years?
2. You need to pull out the OOC body bag games to get a clearer picture of our SoS, since those are considered 'preseason' games by the coaching staff. Having a very strong A&M team, Notre Dame, and Baylor over the last few seasons is making the SoS look better, but the reality is we played a few impossibly hard games and then had a long run against some of America's worst teams.

But did we have a long run against some of America's worst teams? This year we sure did, but what about the last few years? You're not really providing anything to back up your assertion except for your own gut feeling. It would make a much more compelling argument with some data on the ratings of the teams in CUSA that we have played the last few years.

The reason I ask is this year's SOS actually bears out that we player one of the worst schedules in the country for an FBS school. Even playing Baylor and a few other teams ranked in the Top 60 couldn't pull it out of the garbage. But last year's was almost 50 spots better when we only played an 8-5 Notre Dame and an 8-5 A&M. I can't imagine two games accounting for such a dramatic increase. But perhaps playing a team like Wagner this year accounted for such a drastic decrease.

Also, who we defeat has nothing to do with SOS, which was your original claim - that all we are doing is playing bad schools. We've been down this road, the last two years we haven't beaten anyone in the top 3 quantiles of FBS, while in 2012 and 2013 we did.

Back to the thread title which has nothing to do with SOS or losing to UTSA.

I think we should revel in this sentiment and the publicity. For one (Positive) thing, it shows that the players are capable of thinking beyond a bad loss to UTSA.

Juxtapose this video and Bob's winning career recrod with the weekend of NFL, when Rice was all over the place and on every announcers lips--Callahan, McDonald, Willson, and Boswell.

I don't think our coach can prepare teams to be effective against opponents with superior athletes, I believe that a fair part of Bob's winning career record was enabled by schedule dilution, and we lost to teams this year with inferior athletes. I believe he should be replaced.

But the video and the NFL performances are part of the whole story, just as Charlotte attendance and blowout losses are.

(11-30-2015 08:23 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Back to the thread title which has nothing to do with SOS or losing to UTSA.

I think we should revel in this sentiment and the publicity. For one (Positive) thing, it shows that the players are capable of thinking beyond a bad loss to UTSA.

Juxtapose this video and Bob's winning career recrod with the weekend of NFL, when Rice was all over the place and on every announcers lips--Callahan, McDonald, Willson, and Boswell.

I don't think our coach can prepare teams to be effective against opponents with superior athletes, I believe that a fair part of Bob's winning career record was enabled by schedule dilution, and we lost to teams this year with inferior athletes. I believe he should be replaced.

But the video and the NFL performances are part of the whole story, just as Charlotte attendance and blowout losses are.

These two comments...

Does not compute...