(12-08-2022 08:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 09:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I keep harping on the idea that we should strive to be top 75 from g5 and if we ever get to p5, to be top 50%. That puts us in a bowl most every year... and in g5, has us competing for championships most every year. That LITERALLY puts us in the middle of college football... and that is not too much to ask nor expect.

Not quoting whole post, with which I agree.

But your hypothetical starts with winning 80% in CUSA--which Rice did for 2 (out of 11) years under Bailiff, and never under Bloomgren. That's the problem that needs to be fixed first.

With the move to AAC your expectations drop to 70%. Again, what are the chances of THIS Rice program having a chance at that?

Bottom line is that Rice as to get a lot better before worrying about anything else.

I think back to the debate that went on here for some time about whether it was more important to have a signature victory or to win CUSA. They're the same thing. A team good enough to get a signature win will also be good enough to dominate CUSA. And beating anybody and then going 4-4 in CUSA is not a signature win, it's just a one-off fluke. Rice started 2014 playing Notre Dame and aTm. Had Rice won either of those games, and then come home and lost to Old Dominion as Rice did, any signature effect would have been gone. TCU's wins against p5s when it was still a g5 were signature wins because TCU was dominating the g5s. Beating Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl was a signature win because TCU was 12-0 before that game. In the previous 5 years, they had won 12, 11, 8, 11, 11, including 4-1 in bowls. That's how you move up.

Rice won CUSA once, but never got that signature win.

Signature wins are just upsets that are not backed up with further wins. I think maybe our last signature win was in 1957 7-6 against the Aggies.