This writer is great. He really does his homework. He previews a new team each week, from worst to first, and ends it with a clue as to who is up next. Today he previewed cal, and his clue points to RICE next so I thought I'd let you all know.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...w/2403701/

94? Really?

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

My thoughts exactly. But then again, given our history, we might be foolish to expect anything different.

A good part of the reason we rallied to go 7-6 last year is that the schedule got easier in the latter stages of the season. However, I can't ignore the fact that we thoroughly dominated two fairly decent teams in SMU and Air Force. On balance, we have the vast majority of an improving team coming back. That should not translate into a ranking of 94, even considering our conference and lack of pedigree.

In any case, I still want Bailiff gone.

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

I was also expecting something much higher than 94. I have been following this daily, and 7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU). We'll be predicted worse than UAB and Louisiana Tech, which is disappointing.

(06-09-2013 07:35 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU).

6 of the 7 have a ranking of 109 or worse out of 125.

Where is Air Force? If they are higher than us, I don't think this rating is worth the price of the article. Also, what about SMU - same thing applies there.

(06-09-2013 07:35 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

I was also expecting something much higher than 94. I have been following this daily, and 7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU). We'll be predicted worse than UAB and Louisiana Tech, which is disappointing.

Our final Sagarin last year was 79 (actually 83 but there were four 1-AA schools ahead of us).

The schools on our 2013 schedule that finished 2012 higher than that were (eliminating 1-AA teams from rankings)

3. TAMU
46. Tulsa
50. La Tech

So USA Today is going to project UH and UAB ahead of us even though each finished far behind us last year.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. We deserve it based on past performance. 2013 is a great opportunity to change the story on Rice football

2. I think a lot of folks here are being too simplistic in assuming La Tech collapses. Tulsa lost an NFL quarterback and just keeps on winning. It is safer to assume that Sonny Dykes changed that place for good (and thereby earned Pac-10 megabucks) than that he was right place/right time with a hot QB

2a. Corollary of 2 is that I refuse to entertain the idea that we should accept a step backwards when McHargue's eligibility expires. It was only one half of football, but we have seen Driphus Jackson play at as high a level as McHargue has ever done.

(06-09-2013 08:33 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:35 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

I was also expecting something much higher than 94. I have been following this daily, and 7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU). We'll be predicted worse than UAB and Louisiana Tech, which is disappointing.

Our final Sagarin last year was 79 (actually 83 but there were four 1-AA schools ahead of us).

The schools on our 2013 schedule that finished 2012 higher than that were (eliminating 1-AA teams from rankings)

3. TAMU
46. Tulsa
50. La Tech

So USA Today is going to project UH and UAB ahead of us even though each finished far behind us last year.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. We deserve it based on past performance. 2013 is a great opportunity to change the story on Rice football

2. I think a lot of folks here are being too simplistic in assuming La Tech collapses. Tulsa lost an NFL quarterback and just keeps on winning. It is safer to assume that Sonny Dykes changed that place for good (and thereby earned Pac-10 megabucks) than that he was right place/right time with a hot QB

2a. Corollary of 2 is that I refuse to entertain the idea that we should accept a step backwards when McHargue's eligibility expires. It was only one half of football, but we have seen Driphus Jackson play at as high a level as McHargue has ever done.

It all depends on how the OC/Bailiff plan and call the games. The same things that Driphus did in the second half were there in the first half but not called. The week of the first game someone needs to go into the coaches offices and change the calender to read November..we always are so much more conservative in the first 5 or 6 games and that needs to change. Would love to see us do what we did against UH in the first game in 2006 and go right for the throat.

(06-09-2013 08:25 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Where is Air Force? If they are higher than us, I don't think this rating is worth the price of the article. Also, what about SMU - same thing applies there.

SMU has clocked in at a surprising 99. The author expects SMU to take a step backwards against much tougher competition, and end their bowl streak.

(06-09-2013 07:35 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

I was also expecting something much higher than 94. I have been following this daily, and 7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU). We'll be predicted worse than UAB and Louisiana Tech, which is disappointing.

So, if Rice were to finish the regular season at 7-5 (a second straight winning season), would that be great, satisfactory, or disappointing? I think it would be somewhere between great and satisfactory.

(06-09-2013 10:20 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  So, if Rice were to finish the regular season at 7-5 (a second straight winning season), would that be great, satisfactory, or disappointing? I think it would be somewhere between great and satisfactory.

I think this one has been pretty well thrashed out.

*Most, including me, would be disappointed. full stop.
*One regular poster would say that it doesn't matter because no matter what we do, at least 2 of Hat's teams were better but didn't go to bowls and drew big crowds.
*Another will say that you can't make a simple evaluation of W-L record because everything depends on how many games McHargue played in.

I think 2013 is the intersection of as much experienced talent with as weak a schedule as we have had in a long time. While I can understand the appeal of believing that a second consecutive winning season is satisfactory at worst, IMHO 7-5 will not bode well for the trajectory of the program.

I think the general consensus is that 8-9 wins should be the goal for 2013.

Things can obviously change over the next three months ... injuries happen ... teams on schedule are unexpectedly better than anticipated ... blah blah blah

But I think 8-4/9-3 would represent the mean expectation.

(06-09-2013 10:34 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:20 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  So, if Rice were to finish the regular season at 7-5 (a second straight winning season), would that be great, satisfactory, or disappointing? I think it would be somewhere between great and satisfactory.

I think this one has been pretty well thrashed out.

*Most, including me, would be disappointed. full stop.
*One regular poster would say that it doesn't matter because no matter what we do, at least 2 of Hat's teams were better but didn't go to bowls and drew big crowds.
*Another will say that you can't make a simple evaluation of W-L record because everything depends on how many games McHargue played in.

I think 2013 is the intersection of as much experienced talent with as weak a schedule as we have had in a long time. While I can understand the appeal of believing that a second consecutive winning season is satisfactory at worst, IMHO 7-5 will not bode well for the trajectory of the program.

on your first point, I am in full agrrement. 7-5 would be very disapoointing. heck, 9-3 would be somewhat disappointing.

On your second and third points, I believe that you have mistated the positions of those two people and IAC, these were unwarranted, gratuitous personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion.

I then agree with your closing paragraph.

7-5 and a bowl may change the trajectory of the program a bit. Two consecutive winning seasons and bowls. A continued positive for recruiting.
But it won't do a lot to separate us from the second tier. No invites to the major conferences.
What it will do, in my opinion... barring a seismic shift in athletic department attitude... Is that it will solidify Coach Bailiff's position at Rice. Maybe the start of the Bailiff "era".

(06-09-2013 10:20 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:35 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:56 AM)07owl Wrote:  94? Really?

I was also expecting something much higher than 94. I have been following this daily, and 7 of our opponents have already been previewed at a worse pre-season rating ( Kansas, New Mexico State, Tulane, UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, and FAU). We'll be predicted worse than UAB and Louisiana Tech, which is disappointing.

So, if Rice were to finish the regular season at 7-5 (a second straight winning season), would that be great, satisfactory, or disappointing? I think it would be somewhere between great and satisfactory.

Somewhere between satisfactory and disappointing. I expect the team to bowl qualify against the weak opponents. It is also time to play lights out against Houston and challenge Tulsa for the West. Another Bayou Bucket decisive loss and October elimination from the West will be disappointing.

(06-09-2013 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  On your second and third points, I believe that you have mistated the positions of those two people and IAC, these were unwarranted, gratuitous personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion.

Not intended as such. I was aiming for caricature but clearly missed

I think we all have our rubber duckies--mine are Utah State/Chuckie Keeton, Sagarin ratings, and pouring cold water on Walt Greenberg's expectations for back-of-the-bullpen arms. I'm sure those and lots of other things grate on folks, but IMHO all within the bounds of good behavior here.

I read some good humored poking into the comments and might have also added that we could be undefeated and there would still be a "fire Bailiff" contingent.

The thing we can all agree on is there's a game to be won this afternoon!

I think #94 is about right for a preseason forecast based on all available data. I would like us to do better, I expect us to do better, and I will frankly be disappointed if we do not do substantially better. But there's nothing in the past to support a higher expectation going in. We've got a pretty good chance to start 1-4 if we're not ready, and there's history suggesting the we probably won't be ready.

Losing to both Kansas and UH would be very disappointing, as would only winning 7 games.

(06-09-2013 12:21 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 11:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  On your second and third points, I believe that you have mistated the positions of those two people and IAC, these were unwarranted, gratuitous personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion.

Not intended as such. I was aiming for caricature but clearly missed

I think we all have our rubber duckies--mine are Utah State/Chuckie Keeton, Sagarin ratings, and pouring cold water on Walt Greenberg's expectations for back-of-the-bullpen arms. I'm sure those and lots of other things grate on folks, but IMHO all within the bounds of good behavior here.

Sorry, then. We really do need the sarcasm smiley, or in this case, the caricature smiley.