(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:22 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I agree. We must find a win in the first three games. An 0-3 start is unacceptable in year four of this coach's tenure. If we start 0-3, we're looking at an average 6-6 or 7-5 season. That's not good enough.

Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

Wasn’t the whole point of firing Bailiff and bringing in Bloomgren that we could start competing with/beating top 75 teams?

UT is top 15, so I’ll excuse a loss there. Arkansas is probably top 50, so we should be competitive. UH finished last season #81 in Massey, so we should be winning that game on our home field in year #4.

So yes, in my view, an 0-3 start would be unacceptable.

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:22 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I agree. We must find a win in the first three games. An 0-3 start is unacceptable in year four of this coach's tenure. If we start 0-3, we're looking at an average 6-6 or 7-5 season. That's not good enough.

Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

If we go 1-3 in pre-season, we'll need to at least go 5-3 and maybe even 6-2 in CUSA to make a bowl, which is what Bloomgren needs to do to keep his job, IMO.

(06-09-2021 10:14 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:22 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I agree. We must find a win in the first three games. An 0-3 start is unacceptable in year four of this coach's tenure. If we start 0-3, we're looking at an average 6-6 or 7-5 season. That's not good enough.

Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

If we go 1-3 in pre-season, we'll need to at least go 5-3 and maybe even 6-2 in CUSA to make a bowl, which is what Bloomgren needs to do to keep his job, IMO.

And I'd agree with that. This is make or break for Bloom. We have to go to a Bowl this year. BTW, not mentioned previously in the progress talk, Bloom has improved our recruiting ranking each year he's been here...and next year's incoming class is the best yet.

(06-09-2021 10:11 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Wasn’t the whole point of firing Bailiff and bringing in Bloomgren that we could start competing with/beating top 75 teams?

Not the whole point, but a big part of it.

Another part was to stop going to mediocre bowls. Bloom has succeeded in that.

(06-09-2021 01:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Another part was to stop going to mediocre bowls. Bloom has succeeded in that.

Well, we didn't go to any bowl--mediocre or otherwise--between 1961 and 2006, so we pretty much know how to fix that.

(06-09-2021 10:21 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:14 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:22 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I agree. We must find a win in the first three games. An 0-3 start is unacceptable in year four of this coach's tenure. If we start 0-3, we're looking at an average 6-6 or 7-5 season. That's not good enough.

Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

If we go 1-3 in pre-season, we'll need to at least go 5-3 and maybe even 6-2 in CUSA to make a bowl, which is what Bloomgren needs to do to keep his job, IMO.

And I'd agree with that. This is make or break for Bloom. We have to go to a Bowl this year. BTW, not mentioned previously in the progress talk, Bloom has improved our recruiting ranking each year he's been here...and next year's incoming class is the best yet.

Recruiting class rankings don't win games or go to bowls. It's past time to see those improve recruiting classes produce a winning product on the field.

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question for the Parliament - does the 20-0 win over favored Marshall on the road count as a SigWin?

No.

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

This, exactly.

(06-09-2021 04:43 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

This, exactly.

If we're 0-3 and UH beats us by 21 I think at that point it's average and struggling. Even dumb old Bailiff beat UH twice in his first 4 years.

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question for the Parliament - does the 20-0 win over favored Marshall on the road count as a SigWin?

No.

It’s a solid win.
Problem is nobody knows Marshall was ranked at the time (especially since they didn’t finish ranked)

(06-09-2021 06:53 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question for the Parliament - does the 20-0 win over favored Marshall on the road count as a SigWin?

No.

It’s a solid win.
Problem is nobody knows Marshall was ranked at the time (especially since they didn’t finish ranked)

Not a signature win, but did expose Marshall. So there is that.

(06-09-2021 07:28 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:53 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 02:34 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Question for the Parliament - does the 20-0 win over favored Marshall on the road count as a SigWin?

No.

It’s a solid win.
Problem is nobody knows Marshall was ranked at the time (especially since they didn’t finish ranked)

Not a signature win, but did expose Marshall. So there is that.

I loved that win, but it wasn't signature or solid. They had guys out due to Covid and were ranked only because they had actually played football (see PAC 12). Yet, Bailiff beats a top-25 Marshall in a conference championship and it's old hat. No love for the Bailiff administration but Bloomgren beating Marshall is insane as even a note in Rice football's awful history.

(06-09-2021 10:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:22 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I agree. We must find a win in the first three games. An 0-3 start is unacceptable in year four of this coach's tenure. If we start 0-3, we're looking at an average 6-6 or 7-5 season. That's not good enough.

Since when is a 7-5 season "average" or "struggling" (as you characterized it in a previous post)? And you have to weigh in who and where we're playing those first 3 games. UT is going to be a preseason Top 15 team, and Arkansas is vastly improved, and we're playing both on the road to sold out home crowds. I do think UH at home is winnable, but even if we do lose, I would not call that an "unacceptable" start, and would not be an indicator of how good this team could be when all is said and done.

Rice is a member of CUSA. It's a bad conference. Going 6-6 or 7-5 in year four is 'average' by any measure in my opinion.

(06-09-2021 09:59 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice is a member of CUSA. It's a bad conference. Going 6-6 or 7-5 in year four is 'average' by any measure in my opinion.

Average in CUSA is well below average in FBS.

(06-09-2021 10:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 09:59 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice is a member of CUSA. It's a bad conference. Going 6-6 or 7-5 in year four is 'average' by any measure in my opinion.

Average in CUSA is well below average in FBS.

But a 7-5 season after a 1-3 non-conference record would mean 6-2 in C-USA. That would be above average in comparison to recent Rice seasons.

Jesus effing popsicle... can we PLEASE stop with this "what is average' crap?

CUSA is a HORRIBLE conference. There will be 5+ teams ranked north of 100 on our schedule (sometimes as many as 8).

SCREW what the record is... At least for now, I want to be consistently competitive with teams in the top 75. If we do that, we will have 7-8 wins, maybe as many as 9 or even 10 and win the conference if we're in the top 75. Think about that for a minute. We can EASILY be in the championship game.

The RECORD may be 'above average', but we're in year 4 of a 1+mm/yr coach. We SHOULD be 'above average'. The problem is that 'average' in CUSA is in the bottom quartile of ALL FBS FOOTBALL.

QUIT ACCEPTING BEING IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY WINS THAT IS

(sorry... long night)

With 130 teams, being in the bottom quartile means being roughly 100 and below. 75th is not that far below being among the top half of FBS. So, I'm unclear as to above which bar you want Rice to clear.

Using my rating system, here are how many C-USA teams were above 75/75-99:

2020: 2/2
2019: 4/3
2018: 4/4
2017: 3/6
2016: 4/2

(06-09-2021 11:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Jesus effing popsicle... can we PLEASE stop with this "what is average' crap?

CUSA is a HORRIBLE conference. There will be 5+ teams ranked north of 100 on our schedule (sometimes as many as 8).

SCREW what the record is... At least for now, I want to be consistently competitive with teams in the top 75. If we do that, we will have 7-8 wins, maybe as many as 9 or even 10 and win the conference if we're in the top 75. Think about that for a minute. We can EASILY be in the championship game.

The RECORD may be 'above average', but we're in year 4 of a 1+mm/yr coach. We SHOULD be 'above average'. The problem is that 'average' in CUSA is in the bottom quartile of ALL FBS FOOTBALL.

QUIT ACCEPTING BEING IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY WINS THAT IS

(sorry... long night)

+1!

That was my point, which you expressed much more clearly .... as usual.

(06-09-2021 11:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Jesus effing popsicle... can we PLEASE stop with this "what is average' crap?

CUSA is a HORRIBLE conference. There will be 5+ teams ranked north of 100 on our schedule (sometimes as many as 8).

SCREW what the record is... At least for now, I want to be consistently competitive with teams in the top 75. If we do that, we will have 7-8 wins, maybe as many as 9 or even 10 and win the conference if we're in the top 75. Think about that for a minute. We can EASILY be in the championship game.

The RECORD may be 'above average', but we're in year 4 of a 1+mm/yr coach. We SHOULD be 'above average'. The problem is that 'average' in CUSA is in the bottom quartile of ALL FBS FOOTBALL.

QUIT ACCEPTING BEING IN THE BOTTOM QUARTILE, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY WINS THAT IS

(sorry... long night)

+1

(06-10-2021 02:29 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  With 130 teams, being in the bottom quartile means being roughly 100 and below. 75th is not that far below being among the top half of FBS. So, I'm unclear as to above which bar you want Rice to clear.

Using my rating system, here are how many C-USA teams were above 75/75-99:

2020: 2/2
2019: 4/3
2018: 4/4
2017: 3/6
2016: 4/2

I just pulled up a few random 'all rankings'for 2019... just because it was a 'real' year.... I don't care enough to look deeper than that... but as follows

Athlon had 7 CUSA teams (including us) ranked worse then #110.
ESPN had 5 in the bottom 10 (or receiving votes in the bottom 10, NOT including us)

I'm not making up what I've seen, so I know that I've seen NUMEROUS CUSA teams consistently ranked north of 100. I think I've commented numerous times when I've looked at the schedule and noticed that we could be the 80th or 90th best team in the country according to most polls, and be 'competing for the conference championship'.... much less having a winning record.

I can probably go back and find my posts for a number of years where I say, we could be ranked north of 100 and if we simply beat teams ON OUR SCHEDULE ranked below us, we're in a bowl game.

No offense to your rankings which I'm sure are well thought out... but you fairly consistently (in terms of rankings AND commentary about our performance) seem to have a higher regard for our performance than every other ranking system. While that may be bias in their systems and not in yours, I'm speaking of the consensus, and using that as the benchmark... while you seem to be essentially arguing that we're really better than they think. Well, to me, you're better when you beat better teams... and we only rarely do that.