Nice, impartial and unbiased assessment of Rice.

Pretty much nails every point either side of the conversation has had on here to being completely destroyed by teams with a pulse, to being hamstrung by injuries/youth at key positions (especially on D).

I found the most interesting comment was in point #2. It's something that we've mentioned here: "Perhaps no team in FBS is this stark: if Rice can match you athletically, you're toast. If the Owls can't, you're going to win by four touchdowns."

There is plenty more interesting tid bits as well.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...ule-roster

I agreed with the vast majority of it.

The reasoning behind the prediction of a 1-4 start is hard to argue with.

(02-11-2016 02:48 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I agreed with the vast majority of it.

The reasoning behind the prediction of a 1-4 start is hard to argue with.

The 1-4 was talking about the games where they had an 80% chance to win or underdogs with a win chance of less than 20%. 3 of those losses are in the first 5 games, and Stanford is an obvious loss prediction. It's Army that's the toss-up.

It's a good article. They did their homework. I think they're a little pessimistic though. Next year's team is good for, at least, six wins.

So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

$$$$$

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

I'm glad this is coming from a former player, who has been there, and who has experienced the rigors of playing top competition first hand. The money is great, but cost is a team that's broken down before conference play even starts.

We play in CUSA. If we need more than one non-conference win to make it to a bowl, then it is time for change in our program.

(02-18-2016 05:25 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

I'm glad this is coming from a former player, who has been there, and who has experienced the rigors of playing top competition first hand. The money is great, but cost is a team that's broken down before conference play even starts.

We haven't ever been good enough to go 10-2. Last year we played one good team, Baylor and it was a disaster. When we get to where we can execute and beat the dregs consistently, then let's talk.

Because we get home and home with them-will get Stanford at HRS next year.

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

(02-18-2016 06:45 PM)temchugh Wrote:  We play in CUSA. If we need more than one non-conference win to make it to a bowl, then it is time for change in our program.

I highly doubt we'll be in CUSA two years from now. Pair the future OOC schedules with a MWC conference slate and tell me what you think, because there's no way we're sticking around CUSA. I can promise you that Karlgaard will never settle for that.
No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

(02-18-2016 06:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 05:25 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

I'm glad this is coming from a former player, who has been there, and who has experienced the rigors of playing top competition first hand. The money is great, but cost is a team that's broken down before conference play even starts.

We haven't ever been good enough to go 10-2. Last year we played one good team, Baylor and it was a disaster. When we get to where we can execute and beat the dregs consistently, then let's talk.

I think you're way out of touch with that. The article even mentions how extremely young we were last season with all the injuries. We were supposed to be terrible.

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 06:45 PM)temchugh Wrote:  We play in CUSA. If we need more than one non-conference win to make it to a bowl, then it is time for change in our program.

I highly doubt we'll be in CUSA two years from now. Pair the future OOC schedules with a MWC conference slate and tell me what you think, because there's no way we're sticking around CUSA. I can promise you that Karlgaard will never settle for that.
No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

So, based on the assumption that we will be a mediocre team in a mediocre conference slightly better than our current conference, you think we should schedule lousy non-conference games.

If we can't compete in MWC, why move? Not that I've seen the invite.

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

Football is violent. Any evidence that playing a good team leads to more injuries?

(02-18-2016 09:44 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

Football is violent. Any evidence that playing a good team leads to more injuries?

How about personal experience? Does that count?

(02-18-2016 06:48 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 05:25 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 04:54 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  So many tossups on the schedule. Wish we could at least have a positive record outside of tossup games. Like 4-2 or 5-2. We should be in the place where we can put Army, FAU, UTSA, UTEP, and Charlotte in the W column (70% or better). Obviously we are going to lose to Stanford and Baylor. I would advocate for playing one or the other, but not both. Why not replace one of those teams with a Tulsa, SMU, Vanderbilt, Tulane (dare I say UH?)? At least against those teams we could have a 15-25% chance or better against the team, which is better than a single-digit percentage.

I'm all for playing the big boys, but why not just one a year? Saves wear and tear, morale, and gives us a better chance to win the actual game. It's all about winning at this point. Everyone loves a winner, they don't care if you're 10-2 and kicked the crap out of sub-par competition. They care you win and win your conference. Eventually the recruiting goes up, and you can schedule two big boys a year and actually compete.

I'm glad this is coming from a former player, who has been there, and who has experienced the rigors of playing top competition first hand. The money is great, but cost is a team that's broken down before conference play even starts.

We haven't ever been good enough to go 10-2. Last year we played one good team, Baylor and it was a disaster. When we get to where we can execute and beat the dregs consistently, then let's talk.

We were 10-4 in 2013. We were good enough to be 10-3...so close...

(02-18-2016 10:02 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:44 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

Football is violent. Any evidence that playing a good team leads to more injuries?

How about personal experience? Does that count?

I believe that is called anectdotal evidence. Or perhaps confirmation bias.

(02-18-2016 10:02 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:44 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

Football is violent. Any evidence that playing a good team leads to more injuries?

How about personal experience? Does that count?

Thank you.

(02-18-2016 09:41 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  [quote='temchugh' pid='13016380' dateline='1455839108']
We play in CUSA. If we need more than one non-conference win to make it to a bowl, then it is time for change in our program.

I highly doubt we'll be in CUSA two years from now. Pair the future OOC schedules with a MWC conference slate and tell me what you think, because there's no way we're sticking around CUSA. I can promise you that Karlgaard will never settle for that.
No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

So, based on the assumption that we will be a mediocre team in a mediocre conference slightly better than our current conference, you think we should schedule lousy non-conference games.

If we can't compete in MWC, why move? Not that I've seen an invitation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't want us scheduling easy nonconference games. What fun would that be? What I would like is a manageable nonconference schedule that leaves us with enough bodies to win as many games as possible. I'm sure that's what everyone wants.

Why move to the MWC? It's a more stable conference. It's members have more name recognition than anyone we play in CUSA besides Marshall and USM. That's good for attendance and fan interest. Not to mention, it's a little more financially lucrative than CUSA. Quit being so obtuse. You know better.

(02-18-2016 10:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 10:02 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:44 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(02-18-2016 09:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  No matter the conference affiliation, playing LSU, Texas, UH, Stanford, Baylor, and Pitt with regularity is a great way to get our team beat up and injured every year. Quickly.

Football is violent. Any evidence that playing a good team leads to more injuries?

How about personal experience? Does that count?

I believe that is called anectdotal evidence. Or perhaps confirmation bias.

Bingo.

Until we have the facts let's avoid statements like this. This is how statements like "our opponents are so much bigger" (which is completely false and has been shown time and time again) start and then get regurgitated by people with reading comprehension issues like Afflicted.