(02-28-2016 09:32 PM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:41 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:28 PM)RiceDad Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:18 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  Anyone interested ?

Yes, since the purported TV presentation appears to another bit of BS. I don't understand how Comcast can show the game on its schedule on two channels and it is on neither. JK needs to do something about this! I am glad that we are not on the schedule next year and hope to be never to be again!!!

Ummm ... it's on ROOTs 674 in Houston. Start time determined by adding c. one hour to the finish time of the previous game. That's how it's always been. Don't understand the vitriol ?

I'm sorry you DA 674 on MY Comcast is MTV, not ROOT which is 710 on my TV. It continues to show last night's schedule while saying College Baseball is scheduled, so I think my VITRIOL is warranted!

On 639 in Houston for Comcast.

(02-28-2016 09:23 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:21 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:03 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:41 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  Start time determined by adding c. one hour to the finish time of the previous game. That's how it's always been.

On the other hand, when an event runs hours behind schedule, every year since its inception, it seems fair to question the competence (or even the sanity) of the event organizers.

It's a baseball game. No time limits.

Sure, but one can make reasoned estimates. And a tournament that consistently underestimates -- game after game, year after year -- would seem to be incompetently planned.

Then the sport of baseball is incompletely planned.

This reply make no sense. By that logic, why not just schedule games to start every hour on the hour, and then when they end up starting 6 or 7 hours behind, just throw up your hands and say "What are you gonna go? It's baseball!"

If there is any sport which has people capable of using past data to make better predictions of future activity, baseball would seem to be the one. The fact that the organizers of this particular tournament apparently refuse to do so reflects poorly on them. There is no reasonable argument that it doesn't.

(02-28-2016 09:34 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:23 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:21 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:03 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  On the other hand, when an event runs hours behind schedule, every year since its inception, it seems fair to question the competence (or even the sanity) of the event organizers.

It's a baseball game. No time limits.

Sure, but one can make reasoned estimates. And a tournament that consistently underestimates -- game after game, year after year -- would seem to be incompetently planned.

Then the sport of baseball is incompletely planned.

This reply make no sense. By that logic, why not just schedule games to start every hour on the hour, and then when they end up starting 6 or 7 hours behind, just throw up your hands and say "What are you gonna go? It's baseball!"

If there is any sport which has people capable of using past data to make better predictions of future activity, baseball would seem to be the one. The fact that the organizers of this particular tournament apparently refuse to do so reflects poorly on them. There is no reasonable argument that it doesn't.

Really relevant to the game thread... Blake getting hit hard in the 2nd.

(02-28-2016 09:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:22 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  It may be baseball and not timed, but when you miss start times every year by more than an hour by the end of the day, maybe you start adjusting start times?

What a concept!
Scheduled start times are currently 3.5 hours part. It has been obvious for 15 years that this is not enough, yet they keep going back to it. The most charitable thing one can say is that this planning reflects a triumph of hope over experience. A cynic might say it is evidence of insanity.

Changing the interval to 4 hours would be an obvious improvement -- and has been obvious for over a decade.

You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

(02-28-2016 09:24 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:22 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  It may be baseball and not timed, but when you miss start times every year by more than an hour by the end of the day, maybe you start adjusting start times?

We got it. Thanks.

We didn't have a problem with this when we were sweeping teams every year on a Major League field.

Who's "we"? Many fans felt it was poor planning when Rice was winning, and remains poor planning when Rice is not.

Anyone have a channel for Dish Network. The MLB Network feed is blacked out.

(02-28-2016 09:37 PM)JMay Wrote:  Anyone have a channel for Dish Network. The MLB Network feed is blacked out.

Do you have ROOTs ... If so 674.

(02-28-2016 09:35 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:22 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  It may be baseball and not timed, but when you miss start times every year by more than an hour by the end of the day, maybe you start adjusting start times?

What a concept!
Scheduled start times are currently 3.5 hours part. It has been obvious for 15 years that this is not enough, yet they keep going back to it. The most charitable thing one can say is that this planning reflects a triumph of hope over experience. A cynic might say it is evidence of insanity.

Changing the interval to 4 hours would be an obvious improvement -- and has been obvious for over a decade.

You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

For Pete's sake! The concern is not the length of the games (that would be a separate topic) -- it is the failure to use available data on the length of the games when setting the schedule. What is unclear about that?

(02-28-2016 09:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:35 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:22 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  It may be baseball and not timed, but when you miss start times every year by more than an hour by the end of the day, maybe you start adjusting start times?

What a concept!
Scheduled start times are currently 3.5 hours part. It has been obvious for 15 years that this is not enough, yet they keep going back to it. The most charitable thing one can say is that this planning reflects a triumph of hope over experience. A cynic might say it is evidence of insanity.

Changing the interval to 4 hours would be an obvious improvement -- and has been obvious for over a decade.

You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

For Pete's sake, are you dense, or just pretending to be? The criticism is not the length of the games -- it is the failure to use available data on the length of the games when setting the schedule. What is unclear about that?

I just can't. Nobody cares that much...that's why it hasn't changed. Perhaps next year they'll spread out the listed start times and then you can feel better. For now I'm glad we hit a double.

Feel so bad
No fun to watch any Rice sport now.

RBI double to left field ties it!

Tie game!

1-1 if anyone cares to talk about baseball instead of the SOS. Wunderlich (who seems to be Rice's best hitter early on) with an RBI double.

(02-28-2016 09:45 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  1-1 if anyone cares to talk about baseball instead of the SOS. Wunderlich (who seems to be Rice's best hitter early on) with an RBI double.

Proctor and Lewis have impressed me too.

(02-28-2016 09:44 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:35 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:22 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  It may be baseball and not timed, but when you miss start times every year by more than an hour by the end of the day, maybe you start adjusting start times?

What a concept!
Scheduled start times are currently 3.5 hours part. It has been obvious for 15 years that this is not enough, yet they keep going back to it. The most charitable thing one can say is that this planning reflects a triumph of hope over experience. A cynic might say it is evidence of insanity.

Changing the interval to 4 hours would be an obvious improvement -- and has been obvious for over a decade.

You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

For Pete's sake, are you dense, or just pretending to be? The criticism is not the length of the games -- it is the failure to use available data on the length of the games when setting the schedule. What is unclear about that?

I just can't. Nobody cares that much...

I think you'd be surprised how many people -- including the student-athletes -- would welcome a more realistic schedule.

Offensive breakout in the 2nd inning, and all by the kiddie corp-- Proctor leadoff single, Wunderlich RBI double, Staub RBI double. That's Staub's 2nd double in two nights. I think he's earning the left-handed DH role. Yes, I know both Wunderlich and Staub are Sophomores, but Dayne was only used as a pinch runner last year, and Staub never played.

Dane Myers is on a strikeout streak. I think he already has 13 Ks on the season, and he whiffed 4 of his last 5 ABs.

Where is Dicaprio? We could use his bat. I don't think Kop has a hit yet this season. Any word on Gray?

Staab is a true freshman.

(02-28-2016 09:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:44 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:35 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:28 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  What a concept!
Scheduled start times are currently 3.5 hours part. It has been obvious for 15 years that this is not enough, yet they keep going back to it. The most charitable thing one can say is that this planning reflects a triumph of hope over experience. A cynic might say it is evidence of insanity.

Changing the interval to 4 hours would be an obvious improvement -- and has been obvious for over a decade.

You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

For Pete's sake, are you dense, or just pretending to be? The criticism is not the length of the games -- it is the failure to use available data on the length of the games when setting the schedule. What is unclear about that?

I just can't. Nobody cares that much...

I think you'd be surprised how many people -- including the student-athletes -- would welcome a more realistic schedule.

You win George. It's the worst. I hate it. The people in charge are terrible. The whole world would be better if they spread the start time out to 5 hours a part...why won't everyone just listen to you and do what you say?

Good grief.

(02-28-2016 09:52 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:47 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:44 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:38 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:35 PM)Da.Owl Wrote:  You're a big tennis guy. Are tennis matches timed ? So what's the big deal about baseball games and their elapsed times ?

For Pete's sake, are you dense, or just pretending to be? The criticism is not the length of the games -- it is the failure to use available data on the length of the games when setting the schedule. What is unclear about that?

I just can't. Nobody cares that much...

I think you'd be surprised how many people -- including the student-athletes -- would welcome a more realistic schedule.

You win George. It's the worst. I hate it. The people in charge are terrible. The whole world would be better if they spread the start time out to 5 hours a part...why won't everyone just listen to you and do what you say?

Good grief.

You don't have to be childish about it. Two of us have made reasoned criticisms of the way the tournament is run. That's hardly an unacceptable topic -- and the responses to those criticisms have been inarguably inane. You don't have to agree -- maybe you like things running behind schedule game after game, year after year. But you don't have to chastise others for finding it less than admirable.