(07-30-2018 11:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: This is not about Bailiff. It is about the 2018 Rice Owls football team. Bailiff is gone, he is history. Might as well explain to me what Heisman did wrong.
Just don't come to me after a loss and tell me we had a good scheme and executed it well, just got unlucky. sometimes you do everything as right as you can and still lose(UH 31, Rice 30; or UT 31, Rice 30)). Once in a while, you screw things up royally and come out smelling like a rose(Rice 18, FAU 14). Sure those are the less likely outcomes, but if we lose, we lose.
I am reminded of the 31-30 loss to Houston to start the Todd Era. We fought well, we executed well, we did everything right, and but for the fluke of a broken thumb, we probably would have won. But we didn't. And the L in that game counted the same as the L in the 17-41 Troy game in the 7-6 final tally. I don't want to see a bunch of games in which we are proud of our losing effort. I don't want to hear somebody say, "we only won three but we were in the game in the fourth quarter four other times". BFD. If we won 3, we lost 10. No excuses.
I thought this was about Rice winning football games. The point is that having a good scheme and executing it well is how to win football games. The UH game that you mention is a good example. We felt excited after that game because we were coming off a 1-10 season, UH was expected to be very good (and were), and playing them tough was an indicator that the season had the potential to be a good one (it was). We lost that game to UH because we made more mistakes than we had the athletic talent to overcome. You can play sloppy and win if you out-athlete people. That's never going to be a common occurrence for Rice.
You act as if eliminating stupid mistakes is something apart from winning games. You have this repeated mantra about not being happy if we play soundly and lose, and being happy if we play stupidly and lose. Number one, if you lose you didn't play well enough, and if you win you didn't play too badly. I'm with you that winning versus losing is what matters. The worst win is better than the best loss. My only point is that playing sound football is the way to win. Maybe not every time. Sometimes you have a good plan and execute it well, but just get out-athleted. Navy lost 31-27 a few years ago, to an Ohio State team that won the Rose Bowl, at Columbus. A few weeks later, they beat Rice 63-14, and they also beat Notre Dame in South Bend, and finished 10-4 with a bowl win over Mizzou. What is significant is remembering the comments after the game at Rice, where the laments were strong that we played very sloppy football to lose badly to a team the we probably out-athleted. A team the we out-ahleted played Ohio State down to the last whistle, and beat Army, Air Force, Mizzou, and ranked Notre Dame, plus six others. That is the difference that scheme and execution make. Would I have been a happy Navy fan after the Ohio State game? Hell, no, particularly considering that IIRC they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Would I have been pretty happy with the season? Hell, yes. I want to see Rice overachieve like Navy. That means scheme and execution, because we are not going to out-athlete people. I mention Bailiff only as a point of reference. If his teams had plated smart, solid, error-free (or relatively so), and well-executed football, would they have won a lot more games? Absolutely. But they didn't. I hope this guy's teams will. First year, it may be hard to win most games, even if we execute perfectly, because 1-11 says that Bailiff left the cupboard pretty bare.
Paul Bryant's first Alabama team was 5-4-1. Would "Bama fans be happy with that result today? Hell, no. But they were ecstatic then, because that was huge progress considering where they had been. Did that team execute better than its predecessor? Absolutely, and that inspired hope for a better future. Which happened, big-time. I'd be ecstatic with that kind of result for this year's Rice team. With no ties any more and a 12-game schedule, 5-4-1 would translate to something like 7-5 with a loss in a bowl game. Would I like losing a bowl game? No. Would getting to a bowl represent significant progress? You betcha. Just like in 2006.
What I want to see is smart, well-executed football, that gets absolutely the most out of the talent available. I want Rice to stop beating Rice. If we do that, will we win every game? Of course not. Particularly in 2018, there will be times when we are simply out-athleted. But recruit better to narrow the talent gap, and make up the rest with scheme and execution. Do that and better talent will want to come.. Do that long enough, and better conferences will want us to join them.
If I'm interpreting this conversation correctly, I'd say that your position is that winning and losing is more important than style points, and my position is that scheme and execution are what Rice needs to do to win consistently. Yes, we can steal some wins against the run of play without doing that. Bailiff did. But that's not the way to plan to have sustained success. This staff has a concept (intellectual brutality), they have a plan to implement it (run the rock, move the clock, and play great defense), and as nearly as can be told from practicing against yourself, they seem to be doing a good job implementing it. Is that the perfect plan? I don't know, but at least I know what they are trying to do. Can they get that done with this group of talent? Who knows, but 2006 says it's not outside the realm of possibility. Can they get it done over the long haul? I certainly expect so, and I expect to see signs of that this year. Just not the end product. Just like 'Bama in 1958. I saw Bryant's first win at 'Bama, by the way. In a Denny Stadium that seated 28,000 in those days, and was maybe half full. Will we have a 60-year run like 'Bama has had? Probably not. But they didn't start a whole lot further ahead of where we are today.