Next year the Owls cross-division (C-USA East) opponents will be Marshall (home) & Middle Tennessee (away).

UAB
North Texas
LA Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP

08/30 - at Army
09/07 - Wake Forest
09/14 - vs Texas (in Houston, TX)
09/21 - Baylor

(12-12-2018 01:12 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  Next year the Owls cross-division (C-USA East) opponents will be Marshall (home) & Middle Tennessee (away).

UAB
North Texas
LA Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP

08/30 - at Army
09/07 - Wake Forest
09/14 - vs Texas (in Houston, TX)
09/21 - Baylor

We're going to have to steal a game in the non-conference schedule to have a decent hope of being .500 next year.

Here's to hoping for a big leap forward!

(12-12-2018 01:12 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  Next year the Owls cross-division (C-USA East) opponents will be Marshall (home) & Middle Tennessee (away).

UAB
North Texas
LA Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP

08/30 - at Army
09/07 - Wake Forest
09/14 - vs Texas (in Houston, TX)
09/21 - Baylor

Even if we're much improved next year, we might not win more than 2 or 3.
Rice fans should be prepared to be saying, "wait til next year", next year.

So home/away split should be something like this. Significantly tougher schedule than this year, given where MTSU and Marshall finished this year compared to FIU and ODU (although not sure what the 2019 outlook is for Marshall/MTSU) and considering that we have 3 P5 teams plus an Army team that will potentially finish ranked in the top 25 after the bowls.

Gotta think we need to win Southern Miss, UTEP, UTSA and steal another home game to feel like the program is moving forward. Anything less would be very concerning, IMO.

Home
Wake Forest
Baylor
Texas (technically)
LaTech
Marshall
UNT
Southern Miss


Visitor
Army
UAB
UTSA
UTEP
MTSU

I don't really know what Marshall brings back but I do know that MT loses their 6th year QB, Stockstill, who is/was pretty good.

I personally think we're looking at another 3-9 year.

Challenging schedule. We may not win until October. The home games are all attractive.

I like our future ooc schedules a lot, but I agree unless we show massive improvement 3-9 seems likely. The talent gap shouldn’t be too big for any conference game so maybe we’ll surprise and go 5-7. I’d consider that a big step forward and would expect to be bowling in 2020.

I have no idea what to expect from next year's team. Should be improvement with a full season of Green/Marshman at QB. Hopefully growth from the o-line. I thought the defense was showing more glimmers late in the year, playing some of the younger guys, then earlier in the season.

At least the opponents are somewhat interesting and 7 games in Houston is nice. Baylor, LaTech, and UNT should bring a few visiting fans to HRS.

Not sure what talent the opponents return, but our home games are against some pretty competent teams, based on 2018 results:
Texas: 9-4
NoTexas: 9-3
Marshall: 8-4
LaTech: 7-5
SoMiss: 6-5
Wake: 6-6
Baylor: 6-6

That home game schedule looks rather rough from the #129 POV.

Even the bottom three in W/L are no slouches (but at least for our sake, who the heck knows what Baylor will be like next year....)


Honestly, I see two games in our schedule that we have more than an 'OMG' chance of winning. Honestly I see zero home game wins, should be competitive against UTEP and UTSA as visitors, big underdog to Army, marginal underdogs to MTSU and UAB. Just a first rough guess coming well before this season 'fully' completes, mind you.

Yeah, the home schedule is brutal. I'd like our chances against WF and Baylor in 2020, but not in 2019. I venture to guess 4 wins next season, but a much more competitive team.

(12-12-2018 07:47 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Yeah, the home schedule is brutal. I'd like our chances against WF and Baylor in 2020, but not in 2019. I venture to guess 4 wins next season, but a much more competitive team.

How the heck to you tell if a team is more competitive if they are not winning? Losing by 6 in every game?

I predicted 4 wins for 2018. So if we are going to expect to win 4 in 2019, it's like we just blew off a year.

I actually think 4 would be a better than expected result with this schedule, unless the true freshmen are truly remarkable.

However, if at the end of 2019 Bloom's record is 5-20 +/-1, what does he need in 2020 to save his job/get another offer?

(12-12-2018 10:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How the heck to you tell if a team is more competitive if they are not winning? Losing by 6 in every game?
I predicted 4 wins for 2018. So if we are going to expect to win 4 in 2019, it's like we just blew off a year.
I actually think 4 would be a better than expected result with this schedule, unless the true freshmen are truly remarkable.
However, if at the end of 2019 Bloom's record is 5-20 +/-1, what does he need in 2020 to save his job/get another offer?

Interesting question. I suppose one of the best comparables would be Frank Beamer, who was 2-9, then 3-8, in his first two years at Va Tech, so 5-17 at that point. He went 6-4-1, then 6-5, and kept his job for 29 years. I'm not sure that 7-5 followed by 7-6 would be good enough for me to support keeping Bloomgren at that point, although that might be good enough for Rice to keep him. The subjective things like the eye test might come into play.

Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?

And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

(12-13-2018 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?
And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

Yes. I don't care how close the losses are. I want to see wins. That's my measure of competitiveness. I'd rather see 6 wins and 6 blowout losses than 5 wins and 7 close losses.

(12-13-2018 06:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?
And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

Yes. I don't care how close the losses are. I want to see wins. That's my measure of competitiveness. I'd rather see 6 wins and 6 blowout losses than 5 wins and 7 close losses.

Except if all one cares about is wins and ignores context, you end up potentially zealot-like supporting of a paper tiger.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  r.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

So where is winning in your hierarchy of important things? Just below...what?

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?
And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

Yes. I don't care how close the losses are. I want to see wins. That's my measure of competitiveness. I'd rather see 6 wins and 6 blowout losses than 5 wins and 7 close losses.

Except if all one cares about is wins and ignores context, you end up potentially zealot-like supporting of a paper tiger.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

I think 6 wins-no matter what the losses look like-would be great next year.

(12-13-2018 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  r.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

So where is winning in your hierarchy of important things? Just below...what?

How about just below regularly being a top 25 team?

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?
And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

Yes. I don't care how close the losses are. I want to see wins. That's my measure of competitiveness. I'd rather see 6 wins and 6 blowout losses than 5 wins and 7 close losses.

Except if all one cares about is wins and ignores context, you end up potentially zealot-like supporting of a paper tiger.
It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

If you just out-athlete people, maybe you can be sloppy and still win. But that isn't going to be Rice very often. If you are going to do it with scheme and execution and discipline, then you have to get it pretty much right.