There has never been a lack of interest in A&M or Texas football. The Houston Chronicle had a story today about 5 Texas schools made the top 25 and another list with I think 6 making the top 25 in September 1957. Rice was 18 on that list but rose to win an outright SWC championship. I think the last time Rice was in the top 25 must have been in the early 1960s.

(09-07-2016 11:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

(09-07-2016 01:32 PM)75src Wrote:  There has never been a lack of interest in A&M or Texas football. The Houston Chronicle had a story today about 5 Texas schools made the top 25 and another list with I think 6 making the top 25 in September 1957. Rice was 18 on that list but rose to win an outright SWC championship. I think the last time Rice was in the top 25 must have been in the early 1960s.

Probably (don't have time to look), but there should probably be an asterisk for that for 1994, where the polls released (with Rice receiving votes) before beating Texas on Sunday night, and we lost @ A&M before the next poll released.

(09-07-2016 01:32 PM)75src Wrote:  There has never been a lack of interest in A&M or Texas football. The Houston Chronicle had a story today about 5 Texas schools made the top 25 and another list with I think 6 making the top 25 in September 1957. Rice was 18 on that list but rose to win an outright SWC championship. I think the last time Rice was in the top 25 must have been in the early 1960s.

(09-07-2016 11:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

Forecast calling for rain starting at 2:00

Optimistic prediction: Rice by 6, we go into next week in high spirits and with confidence.
Realistic prediction: Army by 17, we name an interim head coach.

(09-09-2016 12:59 PM)JIBA 08 Wrote:  Optimistic prediction: Rice by 6, we go into next week in high spirits and with confidence.
Realistic prediction: Army by 17, we name an interim head coach.

Thats pretty optimistic too. Realistic is more like army by 17 and we are stuck with Bailiff.

(09-09-2016 01:08 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 12:59 PM)JIBA 08 Wrote:  Optimistic prediction: Rice by 6, we go into next week in high spirits and with confidence.
Realistic prediction: Army by 17, we name an interim head coach.

Thats pretty optimistic too. Realistic is more like army by 17 and we are stuck with Bailiff.

As nice as that sounds, a major coaching change like that is dead certain to escalate our situation from hot garbage to full-blown dumpster fire.

rain will hurt us more than them.

This is a good match-up for us, all other things being equal. Army can certainly exploit us and make it ugly, but that isn't their tendency.

(09-07-2016 09:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 01:32 PM)75src Wrote:  There has never been a lack of interest in A&M or Texas football. The Houston Chronicle had a story today about 5 Texas schools made the top 25 and another list with I think 6 making the top 25 in September 1957. Rice was 18 on that list but rose to win an outright SWC championship. I think the last time Rice was in the top 25 must have been in the early 1960s.

(09-07-2016 11:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

horrible opening week loss to Tulane?

(09-07-2016 09:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

Someone mentioned this earlier this week I think ... but I think it was the timing of the UT game Sunday night after that week's polls had been released.

By the time the next polls were released the following Sunday, we had a lost.

(Again, I'm taking this from memory from a post earlier this week.)

(09-09-2016 03:01 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 09:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

Someone mentioned this earlier this week I think ... but I think it was the timing of the UT game Sunday night after that week's polls had been released.

By the time the next polls were released the following Sunday, we had a lost.

(Again, I'm taking this from memory from a post earlier this week.)

You are correct. And oddly, or humorously, enough, it was the post immediately preceeding Owl At The Moon's asking why we didn't get ranked.

(09-09-2016 03:01 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 09:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

Someone mentioned this earlier this week I think ... but I think it was the timing of the UT game Sunday night after that week's polls had been released.

By the time the next polls were released the following Sunday, we had a lost.

(Again, I'm taking this from memory from a post earlier this week.)

It had actually just been mentioned in the previous post (#42):

(09-07-2016 05:08 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  Probably (don't have time to look), but there should probably be an asterisk for that for 1994, where the polls released (with Rice receiving votes) before beating Texas on Sunday night, and we lost @ A&M before the next poll released.

(09-09-2016 02:01 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 09:35 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(09-07-2016 01:32 PM)75src Wrote:  There has never been a lack of interest in A&M or Texas football. The Houston Chronicle had a story today about 5 Texas schools made the top 25 and another list with I think 6 making the top 25 in September 1957. Rice was 18 on that list but rose to win an outright SWC championship. I think the last time Rice was in the top 25 must have been in the early 1960s.

(09-07-2016 11:09 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  That's a pretty absurd response. I notice that you left out UT and A&M.

By all rights we should have been ranked top 25 by AP in 1994 after becoming one of the top "also receiving votes" teams and THEN beating top 25 UT.
Anyone remember why we weren't?

horrible opening week loss to Tulane?

Yeah, we were 2-2 with a loss to Tulane and no ranked wins. Maybe Almadenmike can find an archive to fact-check that week's poll.

(09-09-2016 03:28 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  It had actually just been mentioned in the previous post (#42):

Well, I guess that technically is earlier this week.

I think the closest we have gotten to Top 25 in modern times is 1997 when we were 5-2. I believe Rice was inside the top 30 in votes in one or both polls. The next game was an unfortunate contest that I got to witness in person in the Cotton Bowl.

Bringing us to the present...

I took a walk over to the Army site and perused the stats from last week's game with Temple. Which they won. In Philadelphia. In front of 34,000 (announced) fans.

Looks like Army controlled the game in the second half. Temple lead at the half 10-7.
Not surprisingly, with their ground game, Army won TOP. About 35 minutes vs Temple's 25.
Total plays, 75 vs 52 for Temple.
Army had 344 total yards vs 251 for Temple. All of that Army yardage was on the ground except 15 yards passing. They completed 2/5 passes.
Temple had 168 yards passing. 12 passes completed out of 26 thrown. And THREE INTERCEPTIONS. They had about 85 yards rushing. On 28 attempts. 3 yards/ run.
Army averaged 5 yards per run.
Army had 1 fumble, and it didn't result in a turnover. Temple did not fumble.

So, my guess is that Army will throw some down the field just to probe our obvious weakness. But basically, they will run at us over and over, trying to cause an error and give up the long run. Or just wear the defense down. They had no turnovers in Philadelphia. And turned 3 Temple turnovers into an upset.

I'm looking for Owl improvement tomorrow. After last week's very poor showing we have nowhere to go but up. We've played these guys before with some success. But it seems that they are better this year. If we turn the ball over, or make stupid penalties that stop key drives we will lose. Control the line of scrimmage... All game long... We win.

I think it's going to be a low scoring game. The O/U is 53... last time I looked.

Rice 17 Army 14

I predict Rice will be much stouter against the run then in 2015. By the time Rice played Army in 2015, Rice's d-line was in shambles because of injuries. The current d-line is healthier and more experienced.

This looks like a good link to watch from home (just read, don't open)

(09-09-2016 06:37 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Bringing us to the present...

I took a walk over to the Army site and perused the stats from last week's game with Temple. Which they won. In Philadelphia. In front of 34,000 (announced) fans.

Looks like Army controlled the game in the second half. Temple lead at the half 10-7.
Not surprisingly, with their ground game, Army won TOP. About 35 minutes vs Temple's 25.
Total plays, 75 vs 52 for Temple.
Army had 344 total yards vs 251 for Temple. All of that Army yardage was on the ground except 15 yards passing. They completed 2/5 passes.
Temple had 168 yards passing. 12 passes completed out of 26 thrown. And THREE INTERCEPTIONS. They had about 85 yards rushing. On 28 attempts. 3 yards/ run.
Army averaged 5 yards per run.
Army had 1 fumble, and it didn't result in a turnover. Temple did not fumble.

So, my guess is that Army will throw some down the field just to probe our obvious weakness. But basically, they will run at us over and over, trying to cause an error and give up the long run. Or just wear the defense down. They had no turnovers in Philadelphia. And turned 3 Temple turnovers into an upset.

I'm looking for Owl improvement tomorrow. After last week's very poor showing we have nowhere to go but up. We've played these guys before with some success. But it seems that they are better this year. If we turn the ball over, or make stupid penalties that stop key drives we will lose. Control the line of scrimmage... All game long... We win.

I think it's going to be a low scoring game. The O/U is 53... last time I looked.

Rice 17 Army 14

I wonder how the three interceptions happened. If they have some talented ballhawks in the backfield, that worries me more than if the interceptions came off deflections from hamfisted receivers.


ALso wonder about the field position after the ints

The first Army INT was on the first possession of the game. Temple had driven deep into Army territory. The INT occurred inside the 20.
Army drove to Temple 10. And missed a FG.
Temple's FG came late in the 2nd after they blocked an Army punt.
The second INT came late in 4th Q. Army up 21-13. Army intercepts at the Temple 26. Scores a TD a few plays later.
Down 28-13, Temple starts the last drive of the game... by passing on every down. They advance the ball to their own 44.. Where Army gets the last INT.
Army runs out the clock.

(09-09-2016 08:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-09-2016 06:37 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Bringing us to the present...

I took a walk over to the Army site and perused the stats from last week's game with Temple. Which they won. In Philadelphia. In front of 34,000 (announced) fans.

Looks like Army controlled the game in the second half. Temple lead at the half 10-7.
Not surprisingly, with their ground game, Army won TOP. About 35 minutes vs Temple's 25.
Total plays, 75 vs 52 for Temple.
Army had 344 total yards vs 251 for Temple. All of that Army yardage was on the ground except 15 yards passing. They completed 2/5 passes.
Temple had 168 yards passing. 12 passes completed out of 26 thrown. And THREE INTERCEPTIONS. They had about 85 yards rushing. On 28 attempts. 3 yards/ run.
Army averaged 5 yards per run.
Army had 1 fumble, and it didn't result in a turnover. Temple did not fumble.

So, my guess is that Army will throw some down the field just to probe our obvious weakness. But basically, they will run at us over and over, trying to cause an error and give up the long run. Or just wear the defense down. They had no turnovers in Philadelphia. And turned 3 Temple turnovers into an upset.

I'm looking for Owl improvement tomorrow. After last week's very poor showing we have nowhere to go but up. We've played these guys before with some success. But it seems that they are better this year. If we turn the ball over, or make stupid penalties that stop key drives we will lose. Control the line of scrimmage... All game long... We win.

I think it's going to be a low scoring game. The O/U is 53... last time I looked.

Rice 17 Army 14

I wonder how the three interceptions happened. If they have some talented ballhawks in the backfield, that worries me more than if the interceptions came off deflections from hamfisted receivers.


ALso wonder about the field position after the ints