(09-22-2013 10:28 PM)Barney Wrote:  ...something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT needs to be done,

Bring back the Owl hats, perhaps?

Question:

Again on clock management...didn't we have one series where we even had to call a time out in a punting situation or after another clock stoppage?

And, why do we continue to meerkat? Is it to shorten the game?

Just venting again.

(09-24-2013 07:16 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  From this mornings Chronicle:

After the game, Bailiff said the team "lost focus" with missed assignments or technique errors. He said the coaching staff might need to discuss whether to simplify things.
He backed off that comment Monday, saying the problems amounted to "10 guys having it and one guy missing" the calls on the field.
One problem that led to miscommunication was confusion relating to how signals were being relayed to players on the field. On offense, the Owls use hand signals from three people. Two are decoys.
Relay problems
To keep opponents from catching on, the Owls will sometimes switch who handles the "live" call by series, quarter or half.
"It's something that shouldn't happen, but it does get confusing," wide receiver Jordan Taylor said. "There are some things we have to clean up."


It's hard to believe this happens 3 games into the head coach's seventh season and at an elite academic university with 23 seniors on the team. What happens next week? The bus gets lost coming from the team hotel and only the defense and trainers make it to the game in time?

I normally despise the FIFY stuff. But I don't think you'll take offense at my additions. And that is one more thing not to like about the Meerkat. As I wrote in another post, execution is far more important than having the perfect play call. And it sounds like the Meerkat is impairing our execution.

Astros under Larry Dierker (or was it Art Howe, I'm having a senior memory moment, anybody else recall?) used to change signs automatically with the number of outs in the inning. I think that would be a lot harder to master than this.

(09-24-2013 10:19 AM)ranfin Wrote:  Reagan has improved as an offensive coordinator, but not nearly to an acceptable level. The difficulty in getting clear on plays is on him. The inability to adjust during the game is on him. The atrocious calls on our last four plays are on him. Time is up.

Other than the obvious fact that they didn't get us into the end zone, what did you find so wrong with the last four play calls? We do a lot of things that I personally find to be egregious mistakes, but play calling is pretty much the least of them. Remember that what you expect the other team to do is a huge factor in play calling, and that execution is normally a much bigger factor in success or failure than the call itself. There really are very few play calls that are truly outstanding or terrible. Usually execution matters far more.

(09-24-2013 10:25 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I know that the O-line was getting reamed by their position coach because my seat wasn't too far away from where they gathered after drives and I could hear the coach yelling from Row T.

Tyus Bowser had a really good game.

(09-24-2013 12:54 PM)ShockerBob Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 10:25 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  I know that the O-line was getting reamed by their position coach because my seat wasn't too far away from where they gathered after drives and I could hear the coach yelling from Row T.

Tyus Bowser had a really good game.

Yes he did. Put a lot of pressure on McHargue with his pass rush.

(09-23-2013 07:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  If you think that you just need a TD and FG to tie, clearly you're going to go up-tempo, rather than crazy-fast.

Everything from here on out is pointless because this is wrong.

I agree with your subsequent math, but that isn't the situation at hand. You don't play for a TD and a FG to tie. You play for the 2 TDs to win... and go at whatever tempo allows you that option. You MAY end up settling for a TD and a FG to tie, but that is NOT how you manage the clock. Since you don't know what the other team will do... if you don't recover the onside kick... you go CF for the first score... If you end up in a situation where the first score is a TD, then you go for 2, because another TD still produces a win and if you make it, a FG (if necessary) gives you OT. NOW you see if you get the onside kick... and if you do, you go at a tempo designed to score with little time left... Planning on a TD and the win, settling for a FG and a tie.

You NEVER play for a tie... until that is your best hope.

(09-23-2013 08:02 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 07:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tautoligical argument. Bailiff kicked the field goal because he ended up in a 4th down situation and needed 2 scores, one of which COULD have been a FG because he kicked the previous point... not because he "played for the field goal". I'm certain he tried to pick up the first down on 3rd down and not merely move the ball to the middle of the field, playing for the field goal.

I know you don't actually believe that by kicking the FG, Bailiff was actually playing for 2 TDs. Yet that's what you said.

No I did not. I said that he was playing for 2 TDs when a situation arose that gave him little choice but to accept a FG. If you want to criticize his decision, it would have been HERE... and not on the 2 pt conversion. I believe we were in a 4th and 4, after 2 incomplete passes (playing fast for a TD) and then settling on 3rd down for a 6 yard rush for the FG. It was the 2 incomplete passes combined with the reality that a 57 yard FG was asking much more than a 50 yard FG would have asked, and we DID have a chance to get 10 yards on a run (we got 6) as they were backing out. Until 3rd down and ten from the UH 40, I believe he was playing for a TD. On 3rd, I think he HOPED to get a first, or to get perhaps 8-9... but to at least get 4 to make the kick more assured.

Quote:I think you're confused: I don't care that kicking the FG seemed right because it would've just left us down 8. What I care is that the decision _was_ wrong, because we ended up missing the 2-point conversion.

Well now I AM confused. You started the thread by asking if anyone else was pissed that Bailiff DIDN'T go for 2 after scoring to make it 31-19 (pre-pat), and now you seem pissed that we did.

Quote:Let's go back to my hypothetical with the 15-point deficit followed by late TD. For the moment just take that as a standalone, only tangentially related to the Rice situation and not dispositive of anything in that discussion. What would you do if you scored a TD with 3 minutes left to put you down 9 (pending the PAT)? Would you go for two now or wait? Do you see one strategy as substantively better than the other?
My answers are that I see going for two immediately as the substantially better approach, for the reasons I outlined in my hypothetical. I'm assuming you disagree, or am I wrong?

I'll play along, but the decisions are different because the situations are different.

In this example, you NEED 2 tds. You just got one. You need one more. You also need two 2 pt conversions to win or 1 and 1 to tie. Fail on either and you need an additional score. Of course you try for it on the first one, because you can't win if you don't.... and if you fail, you need 2 scores so you are in (what you call) crazy fast offense.

This wasn't the situation you described. Why do you need to change the situation, changing the most pertinent details to make your point? You said, down 31-19 with the PAT pending, do you kick it or go for 2? In THIS situation, you need a TD, an EP, a 2Pt conversion and a FG just to tie. If you miss the 2pt conversion, then you need 2 TDs, period... as you describe... BUT and this is a HUGE BUT... You don't PLAY for a tie. You play to win (which is 2 tds anyway) and then SETTLE for a tie. In that event, I kick the EP to make it 31-20. I then try and score as fast as I can and go for 2. If I make it, I can now play for the win with a TD and settle for a tie with a FG.... meaning if I get into a 4th and 4+, I don't HAVE to go for it. If I DON'T make it, THEN I need another TD to win and the FG option for the tie is off the table. All you're doing by going for 2 earlier is to potentially take the FG option off the table sooner. I understand that twice going for the 2 pt conversion gives you a probability of winning with just 1 more TD... but I have to believe that if you are THAT confident you can make two 2pt conversions, you really shouldn't have any trouble making 4th and 3 (functionally the same play) should it arise.

I get your point, but the odds of 2 TDs are the same either way... making the 2pt tries moot... and favor 1TD, a FG and a 2pt try for a tie... going into overtime after scoring what, an unanswered 18 points and giving up nothing over 1td a FG and TWO two point tries for a win. In the former, you can win, lose or tie (sending you to overtime). In the latter, you can only win or lose... and you lose (without 2tds) the moment a 2pt try fails.

But now I'm confused again, because a recap seems to show that down 31-19 we DID go for 2, and your original premise said it was a mistake NOT to go for 2?

Despite the fact that making it gives you a sliver of a chance to win with another 2pt conversion, I would not have done that because it eliminates the possibility of a tie from a FG if necessary, but it didn't end up mattering because we didn't score another touchdown.

Feel free to respond or not. I've said more than enough anyway. It doesn't really matter because we didn't score anyway. I DO appreciate the math you're running through... I just think that you don't EVER play for a tie until you have to... but you also don't close off your options until you have to.

(09-24-2013 12:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-22-2013 10:28 PM)Barney Wrote:  ...something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT needs to be done,

Bring back the Owl hats, perhaps?

Wow!
That's a new one to me.
Where did you find that picture?
That must have been a drum major hat, and not something worn by all of the band.
And, in response, perhaps not.

(09-24-2013 09:55 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 07:39 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  And guess what, none of that "past history" matters to anyone except Rice fans. It doesn't matter to other teams; it doesn't matter to other administrators who might consider Rice as a future conference mate. It doesn't make us any better on Saturdays. That "past history" is just for some Rice fans to b!tch about missing the "good ol' days".

GoodOwl's comment was made in response to someone who pointed out that Rice has never gone 12-1. In that context I think it's very fair to mention that the schedule is easier than it ever has been.

Thank you, Gravyowl.

12-1 was never possible if the 1 was to be A$M, as being undefeated after the first game would have meant a 14 game season with the conference championship game and a bowl game following the regular season.

Consider that nit picked.

We did have higher expectations for this season partially because the weak schedule. Can't separate the two. If we were playing a 1970's SWC schedule, the expectations would not be 12-anything.

(09-24-2013 10:15 AM)mrbig Wrote:  An 11 or 12 win season was an opportunity for Rice to make a splash that got some people talking. 8 or 9'wins continues last season's incremental improvements and continues slowly repairing the Rice Football brand, but isn't a sign that Rice football has "arrived."

At the end of the day, Rice is 1-2 and could easily be better. It is disheartening that Rice played worse in game 3 than in Game 1. It is disheartening that the team's performance has us talking about which coach(es) are most responsible. Despite generally being critical of some aspects of Bailiff's coaching, I still believe he could be a resounding success with the right coordinators and position coaches. But he hasn't done a good enough job of getting those. Mostly, I am just tired of having the same discussions about Rice under-performing their talent level. I really hoped and believed and thought this year would be different. So far it hasn't been. Too much "that's on me" and "we have to do a better job of getting the players ready." 7 years in, why still the same time every time Rice under-performs?

mrbig, your post made me consider if there were circumstances that I could "accept" an owl loss, or am I just b!tching about the past as some have implied.

The answer is, yes, I can accept a truthful post game comment by the head coach that went something like: "You know, we prepared, executed and played our best. The other team just is flat out better than us and earned that win against us."

or:

"You know, we played our best and executed as well as we can. The other team played well also. It was two evenly matched teams playing to the best of their talent levels. In the end it was a toss-up and we came up a bit short this time. Next time, it will likely go the other way for us against them."

I don't recall either of those scenarios having been the case in losses with Bailiff as Head Coach. It's one thing to lose because the other team is truly better when you've played your best. It's another thing to keep beating yourself. For whatever reason, Bailiff's comments admit that he is very good at beating himself. Week after week, year after year.

Would Patton have been a good general if he said, "well, this one's on me, once again. I've been in command 7 years and I still have to find a way to get our guys to not lose focus. We misread the hand signals and bombed our own guys instead of the enemy. Ooops."

Not bloody likely.


ETA: typos

(09-24-2013 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  12-1 was never possible if the 1 was to be A$M, as being undefeated after the first game would have meant a 14 game season with the conference championship game and a bowl game following the regular season.

Consider that nit picked.

We did have higher expectations for this season partially because the weak schedule. Can't separate the two. If we were playing a 1970's SWC schedule, the expectations would not be 12-anything.

Given that we would have known the approximate caliber of the conference championship foe and anticipating a victory there to go 12-1, leaving us in a bowl game against a completely unknown opponent... this was where MY 12-1 thoughts came from. If we were matched against a weaker opponent, 13-1... and if against a stronger one 12-2... but 12-1 going in.... so I think I just bloodied that nit.

We can still be 11-2 going into that bowl, but a) we are more likely to draw a weaker opponent than if we were 12-1 and b) the probability of going 12-1 is much less as a result of recurring issues of failing to play to our own potential. I am still hopeful, but my confidence in the conference championship is diminished (should we get there) and UTSA, UNT, Tulsa and La Tech are now more in doubt to me than they were. I still believe that there is only one team on our schedule better than we are... A&M... but there are apparently 5 teams, plus the potential conference championship foe capable of beating us, despite, imo, not being better.

In other words, as before... we're still the 70th-100th best team in the country subject to wide swings in performance.

(09-24-2013 12:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Bring back the Owl hats, perhaps?

WE HAVE TO FIND AN OWL HAT!!!

ETA: UNT has some old issues of the Thresher on-line. I thought there might be more photos of the Owl hats there, but I was distracted by a 1924 letter from AD Heisman to the Rice undergrads. There is a lot to comment on in the letter, but one sentence jumps out as timely (IMO):

Quote:...At places where they hunger for success they do not allow defeats to derail them so easily, and we are not going to be derailed here.

So let's win out! :D

Also, the M.D. Anderson apparently taught economics at Rice!

Also also, Stanford used to advertise summer classes in the Thresher!

(09-24-2013 02:12 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  Bring back the Owl hats, perhaps?

WE HAVE TO FIND AN OWL HAT!!!

ETA: UNT has some old issues of the Thresher on-line. I thought there might be more photos of the Owl hats there, but I was distracted by a 1924 letter from AD Heisman to the Rice undergrads. There is a lot to comment on in the letter, but one sentence jumps out as timely (IMO):

Quote:...At places where they hunger for success they do not allow defeats to derail them so easily, and we are not going to be derailed here.

So let's win out! :D

Also, the M.D. Anderson apparently taught economics at Rice!

Also also, Stanford used to advertise summer classes in the Thresher!

That is awesome! Thanks for finding it.

(09-24-2013 12:03 PM)22boys Wrote:  

(09-22-2013 03:14 PM)owl40 Wrote:  OklaOwl- On the halfback wheel route, that was White's guy/zone. Off the zone read action, they had a bubble screen action that he jumped on and got out-of-position...b/c it was short yardage situation. Give Coogs credit on that call more than White getting beat. If memory serves correct there was an injury or some other time out that allowed them to group on sidelines to draw it up. It was very clever.

However, he, Hill, and Porras did get beat plenty of other times though where it was their fault. Really bad day for Safeties but if you are not going to get pressure on QB, you can't ask 4.6 guys to cover 4.4 guys. Bad things are going to happen.

Correction for OklaOwl - The preview clearly shows on the wheel route that RB was LB Ratcliff #10 man, White took the slot receiver who went inside, Ratcliff bit and the running back who is always in pass coverage the LB responsibility got behind him. The FOX announcer even made the same explaination. It was a good call by the Cougar OC.

Play in question is at the 1:34 mark, looks like there were a few players who probably didn't do exactly the right thing on the play. Good play design and execution by UH though.


The most egregious error comes at the 1:09 mark, when on a critical 3rd and long before the half we effectively have nobody covering UH's best receiver (#3 Greenberry) and they complete an easy pass for a long gain and eventually score a TD to take the lead at the half.

So UH double covers/brackets our best receiver and we let their's run free on 3rd downs if UH does something crazy like put him in the slot. Had to be an assignment bust there, right?

We are in the seventh year of a coach's tenure, with 23 seniors on the team. Either of those should be enough to make these sorts of errors extremely rare. Instead, with both those things in place, such errors are commonplace. Not good, very not good,

(09-24-2013 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  12-1 was never possible if the 1 was to be A$M, as being undefeated after the first game would have meant a 14 game season with the conference championship game and a bowl game following the regular season.

Consider that nit picked.

Given that we would have known the approximate caliber of the conference championship foe and anticipating a victory there to go 12-1, leaving us in a bowl game against a completely unknown opponent... this was where MY 12-1 thoughts came from. If we were matched against a weaker opponent, 13-1... and if against a stronger one 12-2... but 12-1 going in.... so I think I just bloodied that nit.

Picked, bloodied. To quote a great American, "At this point, what does it matter?"

Even if we go "only" 10-3, as in 2008, the important thing is to back it up with an equally good or better record in 2014.

(09-24-2013 01:10 PM)Grungy Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 12:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-22-2013 10:28 PM)Barney Wrote:  ...something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT needs to be done,

Bring back the Owl hats, perhaps?

Wow!
That's a new one to me.
Where did you find that picture?
That must have been a drum major hat, and not something worn by all of the band.
And, in response, perhaps not.

I found it in the online archives ... but I forget what I was looking for when it turned up. :-)

Here's the full archives citation: http://scholarship.rice.edu/handle/1911/64108

It's also mentioned in the Sept 22, 1922 Thresher (first page; rightmost column):
http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/ha...sequence=1

(I find the "scholarship.rice.edu" editions of the Thresher easier to navigate than those on the UNT site. But it's great that so many early issues are available online.)

(09-24-2013 04:05 PM)talon owl Wrote:  The most egregious error comes at the 1:09 mark, when on a critical 3rd and long before the half we effectively have nobody covering UH's best receiver (#3 Greenberry) and they complete an easy pass for a long gain and eventually score a TD to take the lead at the half.

So UH double covers/brackets our best receiver and we let their's run free on 3rd downs if UH does something crazy like put him in the slot. Had to be an assignment bust there, right?

Wow.
So who is that on? Safety not moving down or linebacker not sliding over or..?

(09-24-2013 04:53 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  ...(I find the "scholarship.rice.edu" editions of the Thresher easier to navigate than those on the UNT site. But it's great that so many early issues are available online.)

Thanks for the links! The Thresher web site indicated that archived issues only go back to 1991, and I didn't think to look elsewhere at Rice. :)