Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

(07-16-2016 11:24 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

Sadly, we're no better against the Top 50, with just one such win during the DB era, and that was in the CUSA championship game.

(07-16-2016 11:24 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

That was actually in 2009.

I know that because it is shocking that a team led by Fanuzzi/Shephard came that "close" to OK State at their place. That was the game Fanuzzi destroyed his shoulder, IIRC.

(07-16-2016 05:48 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 11:24 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

Sadly, we're no better against the Top 50, with just one such win during the DB era, and that was in the CUSA championship game.

So I fact checked that and in Massey Composite week 14, Marshall was 53. So they weren't top 50 when we beat them. http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2013-14.htm

I don't have the Sagarin ratings on hand for that week, so not sure what they were there.

I guess that means we are winless vs. the top 50?

(07-18-2016 05:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 05:48 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 11:24 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

Sadly, we're no better against the Top 50, with just one such win during the DB era, and that was in the CUSA championship game.

So I fact checked that and in Massey Composite week 14, Marshall was 53. So they weren't top 50 when we beat them. http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2013-14.htm

I don't have the Sagarin ratings on hand for that week, so not sure what they were there.

I guess that means we are winless vs. the top 50?

Marshall received 13 votes in the Coaches Poll the week before we played them, which placed them #29.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rank...13/week/15

(07-18-2016 05:37 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(07-18-2016 05:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 05:48 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 11:24 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Meanwhile, we are 0-15 since 2006 against top-25 competition and the closest game was a 17 point loss to Okie St in 2008. Average margin of loss > 30 points.

Sadly, we're no better against the Top 50, with just one such win during the DB era, and that was in the CUSA championship game.

So I fact checked that and in Massey Composite week 14, Marshall was 53. So they weren't top 50 when we beat them. http://www.masseyratings.com/cf/arch/compare2013-14.htm

I don't have the Sagarin ratings on hand for that week, so not sure what they were there.

I guess that means we are winless vs. the top 50?

Marshall received 13 votes in the Coaches Poll the week before we played them, which placed them #29.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rank...13/week/15

Fair enough. By one non-scientific metric, we beat ONE top 50 team. This is a poll where people like Bailiff get to vote, mind you. I'm not confident in his coaching or anything, let alone able to judge teams.

I am curious as to what Sagarin says. Will need to hunt for that when I get a chance. Because Massey wasn't particularly flattering.

Regardless. 12 or more games, 9 years and we are debating whether we have one win over the top 50. pretty pathetic IMO.

There is a lot of data and statistical breakdown and analysis posted throughout this thread. Two years ago, the question could still be raised as to how fast were we climbing? Two years later the question is are we even climbing at all?

With either Transformation or Incrementalism, the implied is that we are, in fact, climbing in football. I believe I have noticed a trend on this board. Before each season most of us say that this will be the year when we will know definitively what exactly we are doing with our present course in football, and that will tell us what to do. And after most seasons we reflect that, while still inconclusive, the next season will tell us for sure. Is this season the next season? When we have thought it was, looking back, it turns out it wasn't. That is why I asked RiceLad to update his trend analysis from a few seasons ago to today.

Hambone breaks down the essence of this thread:

(07-21-2016 02:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 12:49 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Not even three weeks ago I mentioned here that I expected substantial improvement this season and that "improvement" to me would be measured in more ways than in wins and losses. A 6-6 record and bowl game alone is not something anyone here would celebrate.

Of course w/l isn't the only way to measure things... but given the distribution of our schedule... (few opportunities to demonstrate to anyone else that we are better) the likelihood of what sort of team we'd face in a bowl (if we make it.. i.e. another immaterial 75+ ranked team)... the chances that anyone but someone looking for silver linings (which the p12 b12 AAC etc aren't) would notice or care is close to zero... and if anyone DID notice or care, they'd likely be in a great position to try and hire the coaches responsible for that great play... i.e. if our OL was great but our RB and QBs couldn't hold onto the ball, and thus we still went 6-6... chances are decent that someone else would recognize that as well and hire our line coach... and/or the guys would graduate, so the 'improvement' is short-lived.

You can't have such incremental improvements from low on the yard stick.... because you generally can't keep players or coaches responsible for such things long enough to keep it going. You have to be more bold.

There is a massive difference between 6-6 beating ALMOST nobody ranked higher than 90 and losing badly to everyone ranked inside 70 and being 'spotty' between those points, and going 6-6 by losing close games to 6 teams in the top 50 while beating badly 6 teams ranked 50 or worse, with 2+ of them inside 75.

But that isn't how our schedule shaped up, nor is it likely to any time soon.

What we usually get is 2 teams in the top 20 who beat us by most measures manhandle us... 2 teams ranked between 50 and 80... 3 if we are lucky... most often closer to 70 than 50... and 5 or more teams ranked north of 100.

There is little opportunity for incrementalism when that is what your schedule looks like.

Which is why I don't really care about whether something is absolutely never or only 'almost' never. It's not often enough to make up for the reality of our scheduling distribution issues.

Going to AAC puts more teams in that 50-80 bucket for us, and also more in the 25-50 (which is good)... but it also means at least for the time being, no championships, perhaps fewer bowls and worse records (which is bad)... which is why I suggested eliminating the cross-over games in CUSA giving us another opportunity or two to schedule teams like UH, Tulsa, SMU, Navy who might be in that 25-80 bucket AND bring more fans/attention. I'd also point out that because of familiarity and rivalries, especially in Texas, we've often played GOOD teams like those better than we've played mediocre teams that we know nothing about/have no commonality.

IMO, We've GOT to find a way to put a team worthy of a 40-75 ranking on the field every year.... and not just every so often, so that we have better chances of being 'up' when name teams are down, and that when we get those top 25-50 opportunities, we can stay on the field and with some regularity, win.

the current longest tenured coach in each conference going into the 2016 College Football Season:

AAC: Ken Niumatalolo (Navy) - 2007
ACC: Dabo Swinney (Clemson) / David Cutcliffe (Duke) / Paul Johnson (Ga Tech) - 2007
Big 12: Bob Stoops (Oklahoma) - 1999
Big Ten: Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - 1999
Conference USA: Rick Stockstill (Middle Tennessee) - 2006
MAC: Frank Solich (Ohio) - 2005
Mountain West: Troy Calhoun (Air Force) - 2007
Pac-12: Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - 2005
SEC: Les Miles (LSU) - 2005
Sun Belt: Joey Jones (South Alabama) - 2009

(01-15-2015 07:28 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I've looked over my ratings for the past 3 seasons, and here are the top 15 G5 teams for each year.

2014

1. Boise State
2. Marshall
3. Memphis
4. Colorado State
5. Air Force
6. Utah State
7. UCF
8. Cincinnati
9. Louisiana Tech
10. BYU
11. Navy
12. East Carolina
13. Houston
14. Georgia Southern
15. Nevada
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
20. RICE

2013

1. UCF
2. Louisville *
3. Fresno State
4. Northern Illinois
5. Houston
6. Utah State
7. BYU
8. Boise State
9. Navy
10. East Carolina
11. Marshall
12. Cincinnati
13. Bowling Green
14. North Texas
15. Ball State
16. San Diego State
17. RICE

2012

1. Boise State
2. Cincinnati
3. Louisville *
4. Northern Illinois
5. Fresno State
6. San Jose State
7. Utah State
8. BYU
9. San Diego State
10. Tulsa
11. UCF
12. Rutgers *
13. Louisiana Tech
14. Syracuse *
15. Kent State
16. Arkansas State
17. Ball State
18. Toledo
* * * * * * * * * * * *
28. RICE

* Indicates now in P5 conference. I added additional teams on the "top 15" so as to include 15 teams now in G5 conferences.

and for 2015?

(07-21-2016 04:23 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  the current longest tenured coach in each conference going into the 2016 College Football Season:

AAC: Ken Niumatalolo (Navy) - 2007
ACC: Dabo Swinney (Clemson) / David Cutcliffe (Duke) / Paul Johnson (Ga Tech) - 2007
Big 12: Bob Stoops (Oklahoma) - 1999
Big Ten: Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) - 1999
Conference USA: Rick Stockstill (Middle Tennessee) - 2006
MAC: Frank Solich (Ohio) - 2005
Mountain West: Troy Calhoun (Air Force) - 2007
Pac-12: Kyle Whittingham (Utah) - 2005
SEC: Les Miles (LSU) - 2005
Sun Belt: Joey Jones (South Alabama) - 2009

also, there's these nuggets:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/26143...all/page/9

Quote:Stockstill’s overall record is 64-61 with five winning seasons and five bowl games, but save a 2-10 mark in 2011, Middle Tennessee has won at least five games in every season of his tenure.



When Dennis Franchione left for Alabama in December 2000, TCU officials moved quickly to elevate defensive coordinator Gary Patterson to Franchione’s position. In turn, Patterson has elevated TCU into a consistent role in the national conversation.

Patterson is 143-47 in 15 seasons as TCU’s head coach, and while the Horned Frogs have had some valleys (like a 4-8 mark in 2013), they’ve had more than their share of peaks.

Patterson has 10 seasons with at least 10 wins, including a 13-0 season in 2010 capped by a Rose Bowl win over Wisconsin. TCU has gone from Conference USA to the Big 12 (with a stop in the Mountain West) under Patterson, and in the last two seasons, the Frogs are 24-3, just missing the College Football Playoff in 2014.

With Patterson at the helm, TCU has the ingredients to stay in college football’s upper echelon for years to come.

(01-21-2015 10:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 09:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 06:07 PM)KTOWL Wrote:  We are satisfied beating teams with losing records at one of the weakest bowls. Mindset that is satisfied with a 6 or 7 game winning season as long as we get to a bowl.

Pretty much no one here is satisfied with 7 wins and a bowl game. We have ongoing debate on HOW we want to improve, WHETHER certain wins are cause for large celebration and panic and HOW FAST can we expect returns.

Even the most vocal anti-firing-Bailiff crowd isn't happy with where we are now. They just don't think that anyone we pick up will necessarily be better.

Agreed. I don't remember anyone saying less than 8 wins this season would be acceptable prior to the season. People's definition of 'acceptable' varied, but I really doubt anyone would have been happy with 6 or 7 wins.

And I think if we had gotten 8 wins by beating ODU but getting blown out in a bowl game, many more would be disappointed with 8. So the specifics matter too.

At some point I'm not sure why Walt and GoodOwl are still making these points. Bailiff is back next season. I hope he has a good enough season to win over doubters, as I assume even the doubters do. If not, we can resume this debate again.

Here we are again.

(07-26-2016 09:28 AM)DETLTU Wrote:  Everyone talks about potential and frankly everyone has it. I truly believe Tech can sell out it's stadium even though it's a small school in a small market. There are two methods to do it.
1. Southern Miss
2. Boise State

You can build a winning tradition over 10-15 years of steady success or you can build a winning tradition over a few short years with wildly successful seasons.
The bad news for both of those methods is once the winning stops things can drop off quickly.

There are of course other things you can do to help attendance. Quality scheduling, gameday experience improvements etc, but the main point is people want to see a winner.

From the conference board, but fits well here, too.

With all the Big XII expansion stuff going on and all the potential related fallout, I'm less convinced than ever that incremental is the way to go anymore, if it ever was.

When the tour of the EZF went on late last week, my though in watching the videos was 'gee, they could've waited a bit until the facility looked more finished and impressive before inviting the media photos, but then again, they probably felt they had to get some visible public noise out to the media because of all the Big XII stuff going on.'

I do think it was the right move to go ahead and get media to promote the new facility with the photos even if it was not completely finished yet. I would also hope they continue to invite the media back for another tour or two in the intervening weeks to keep our name in the news and impress upon the public that Rice is spending money on football finally and interested in investing even more in facilities, etc...

I would hope some type of announcement of guidance or even renderings of additional phases of HRS renovation would be forthcoming shortly as well. Keeping everything under wraps so tightly as we traditionally have done in the past is not the best tactic to me at a time where everyone else is competing trying to put as much info out there as they can.

(08-01-2016 11:41 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  With all the Big XII expansion stuff going on and all the potential related fallout, I'm less convinced than ever that incremental is the way to go anymore, if it ever was.

When the tour of the EZF went on late last week, my though in watching the videos was 'gee, they could've waited a bit until the facility looked more finished and impressive before inviting the media photos, but then again, they probably felt they had to get some visible public noise out to the media because of all the Big XII stuff going on.'

I do think it was the right move to go ahead and get media to promote the new facility with the photos even if it was not completely finished yet. I would also hope they continue to invite the media back for another tour or two in the intervening weeks to keep our name in the news and impress upon the public that Rice is spending money on football finally and interested in investing even more in facilities, etc...

I would hope some type of announcement of guidance or even renderings of additional phases of HRS renovation would be forthcoming shortly as well. Keeping everything under wraps so tightly as we traditionally have done in the past is not the best tactic to me at a time where everyone else is competing trying to put as much info out there as they can.

I think the timing was good considering already this past weekend, local sports coverage was focused on everything Texans - JJ's back, DeAndre's holdout, Brock's leadership skills, etc. If Rice had waited until move in, I'm not sure many of the local media would have even shown up or found time to mentioned it.

The new Patterson EZFacility does begin to transform the stadium.


story link here: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/r...er-premium

Although it will be done in phases, which is more incremental, from the interviews and videos there does seem to be extra pep in the coaches and players so far. I don't recall hearing Bailiff with so much energy in an interview. It is nice to see this. When I have spoken before of his shape, what I'm really trying to speak towards is the general energy and confidence level I perceive is projected, which I feel makes a difference in perceptions and results. John Madden was a big guy, but few would have accused him of having low energy or being too laid back as a coach.

(03-21-2013 07:57 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  One of two things will be true

a. Bailiff will build on the late season momentum and build a program that wins consistently; or

b. at the end of the 2015 season Bailiff will own--by a huge, yawning, 2 standard deviation gap--the worst winning percentage among coaches with 9 years of tenure at an FCS school, which will effectively say that the policy of the Rice Board of Trustees is to prefer a losing coach who recruits good kids and gets on TV once a quarter for doing something warmingly big-hearted to a coach for whom NOT being in the CUSA title game is a bad season.

I prefer a. but I have no influence on how the next three seasons will play out.

so far, looks like we got b.
let's see if things can turn around this season.

(08-09-2016 07:24 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  Cincinnati vs Houston historical stats

All-Time Records
UC - 595-570-51 - 51%
UH - 417-352-15 - 54%
Rice= 463–581–32 - 44.5%
BYU - 548–396–26 - 57.8%

All-Time Bowl Records
UC - 8-9 - 47%
UH - 11-12-1 - 48%
Rice= 7–5 - 58.3%
BYU - 13–20–1 39.7%

Conference Championships
UC - 14
UH - 11
Rice= 8
BYU - 23 * 1 National Champ (1984)

Last 20 Years Records
UC - 140-97 - 60%
UH - 125-110 - 53%
Rice= 103-123 - 45.5%
BYU - 168-87 - 65.8%

Last 20 Years Bowl Games
UC - 14 bowls - 2 BCS Bowls
UH - 10 bowls - 1 BCS Bowl
Rice= 5 bowls - 0 BCS Bowls
BYU - 15 bowls - 1 BCS Bowl

There just really isn't that much difference historically between UH and UC. UC has been playing a lot longer and has had more success in the last couple decades, but Houston had a little more success prior to the last 20 years.

Since there was quite a bit of previous analysis in this thread of Boise, TCU and VaTech, it seemed to make sense to have some data from a few of the current P5 move-up candidates. I added in Rice's comparative stats to the quoted post, as well as BYU's stats since they're in the move-up conversation.

Couple of things from looking at those stats:

In the last 20 years, UC and BYU have both performed significantly above their historical program levels. UH has performed slightly below its historical level, which I was surprised to see. Rice has performed slightly above our historical level.

For all the talk about how watered down CUSA has been during this time, and how our football records are artificially inflated by playing teams that many here consider to be the very bottom of Div I, the data surprisingly shows that Rice hasn't really improved all that much record-wise as I would have thought from the conversations on the board.

As far as bowls, which has been another big topic, Rice compares very favorably in raw percentage. However, in the last 20 years, Rice's recent success in bowls still places it significantly behind these other programs, and that well likely contributes to the national perception we still project.

Similar, Rice is still woefully behind in Conference Championships when compared to the other primary move-up candidates. Dropping down to CUSA still hasn't really helped us much in this important category perception-wise. Finally, Rice has not sniffed a BCS bowl, which the other programs have done at least once.

This data gives a bit more perspective on how relatively little Rice has actually transformed, despite the significant positive things that have occurred here recently. I would argue one big overall problem that remains is that Rice's rate of transformation is still far behind where it needs to be in comparison. Another argument for why incrementalism, which appears to be the path we are still very much on, seems to be not enough.

I'd like to see some of the breakdowns in records vs Top25/50/75/100+ for these three teams vs Rice. Not sure exactly what data sources were used before on that.

(02-03-2015 08:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 11:32 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 11:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 09:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2015 08:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Look, regardless of wha we did on the field, our problem was that literally everything OFF the field was so screwed up that nobody wanted us.\

Does this mean that the problem cannot be rectified with just on the field results?

Absolutely. Remember the whole conference thing is about money--butts in seats, eyeballs looking at TVs, that sort of thing. Rice athletics deliberately and intentionally did everything humanly possible to alienate its customer base for 40 years. When you do that, you lose customers. I sat there and watched it happen, and it drove me up the wall. Guys like Mike Pede and Steve Moniaci and Jim Harris tried to turn things around, but got hammered down from above.

We could be winning national championships and if we were still running the business side the way we did in the 1970s and 1980s, I don't know that any conference would want us. The SEC was legitimately interested in 1990, but we had to change our ways of doing things. When we went into WAC, a group from the conference office came down and met with Bobby with a list of things that we had to change. We didn't make the changes that either requested (which were essentially the same changes). That as much as anything probably caused us not to get invited to the Denver airport.

I'm sure I can guess, but what were the specific changes requested?
ETA- and who was doing the hammering down from above?

The demands were similar but there were some differences in the SEC and WAC requests as they got filtered down to me. The SEC was more about investing in facilities, whereas I understood the WAC also wanted a major marketing effort. I think the SEC figured that the SEC name would take care of marketing, while the WAC was still trying to build a brand. My recall is not entirely clear, but I got the impression that our people were a bit surprised by the WAC demands, which they had not expected. In the end I think the WAC split was between those who wanted to build the brand and those who were content with the status quo, and we were definitely not perceived as wanting to build the brand. I think the efforts to build the Mountain West brand faltered with the losses of Utah, BYU, and TCU, each of which was more successful in building its own brand than was the league as a whole.

As for the hammering down, that is a bit of a curious issue. All I ever got from discussions with Bobby and his predecessors was that "they" wouldn't let us do things, "they" obviously meaning somebody in the administration, but without ever identifying who "they" were. I think "they" were people in administrative positions between the president and the athletic director in the chain of command, who served as gatekeepers and prevented the flow of ideas and information, but I don't know specifically who they were. I could make some educated guesses, and probably so can you. What's very curious is that I had discussions with several board members over the years, and they all seemed to be wanting the athletic department to come forward with some sort of plan to address issues, basically a plan to do exactly the sorts of proactive things that "they" (whoever they were) were supposedly denying the opportunity to do. To say the least, it was a very curious situation. The board seemed to want a proactive department, and want it very badly, but somewhere between the athletic director and the board was some "they" in middle management who discouraged all attempts to be proactive. Norman Hackerman and Malcolm Gillis both paid lip service to athletics, but both kowtowed to whoever "they" were and did not really go to bat for athletics on the tough issues. Todd Graham broke this cycle by going directly to David Leebron, going around whoever "they" were, and getting things done. This was by far Todd's greatest positive contribution. CDC had a good relationship with David, and David was the first president to go to bat for athletics in a major way. I think the "they" factor got their revenge by hiring Ranger Rick. As with Bo Hagan long before him, I think there is a credible argument that the decision to hire Rick was made by people who wanted to end the athletic program, and who felt that hiring a weak and incompetent AD was the best way to accomplish that. I think David asserted himself with the hiring of JK and I think David will be involved in any further major decisions regarding athletics, and that is a very good thing.

These are subjective impressions based largely upon second and third hand information, and thus may be incorrect. But they are based upon a staggeringly huge amount of such information, and where there is that much smoke I am inclined to believe there must be a fire. Let's just say that this stuff was a constant topic of discussion among insiders in the department for 40 years.

"Losing is okay if you have a good excuse," and, "If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there."

So how are we doing today, August of 2016, with the issues you mentioned in your posts?

Have "they" gone away or been silenced? Are there still things in the way we're running the business side of things under JK's regime that need more work? What are we now doing right that we weren't before? How much of the issues the SEC wanted and the WAC wanted have we addressed so far? What do you see as the top short term and long term priorities as things stand today? Do we know better where we're going these days, and where is that?