Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Transformation vs Incrementalism
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,926
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 470
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #41
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 04:36 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  agree 100% with Owl69etc. Agree with Antarius.

hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? Fresno is someone, Christmas eve is sometime, Hawaii is a place. we came, we saw, we beat them. what's the problem? we were barely favored, so in the minds of the great unwashed public, we beat somebody. Had a TCU alum tell me he enjoyed the game.

(01-13-2015 04:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Good grief. Keep on believing what you want to believe.

well, if you wish to go that way....hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? LA Tech is someone, Nov 29, 2014 is sometime, Ruston, LA is a place. we came, we saw, we got historically cremated by them.

And:

Marshall is someone, Nov 15, 2014 is sometime, Huntington, WV is a place. we came, we saw, we got smacked by them.

what's the problem? I'm not even talking about our two opportunity games against ND and A&M? in the minds of the great unwashed public, we're the same old Rice.

So what is the point of the anytime, etc, mantra? Which games do not count toward that?
01-13-2015 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 9,144
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 238
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #42
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 04:36 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  agree 100% with Owl69etc. Agree with Antarius.

hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? Fresno is someone, Christmas eve is sometime, Hawaii is a place. we came, we saw, we beat them. what's the problem? we were barely favored, so in the minds of the great unwashed public, we beat somebody. Had a TCU alum tell me he enjoyed the game.

(01-13-2015 04:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Good grief. Keep on believing what you want to believe.

well, if you wish to go that way....hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? LA Tech is someone, Nov 29, 2014 is sometime, Ruston, LA is a place. we came, we saw, we got historically cremated by them.

And:

Marshall is someone, Nov 15, 2014 is sometime, Huntington, WV is a place. we came, we saw, we got smacked by them.

what's the problem? I'm not even talking about our two opportunity games against ND and A&M? in the minds of the great unwashed public, we're the same old Rice.

So what is the point of the anytime, etc, mantra? Which games do not count toward that?

Thank you for progressing to asking that very important question, OO!

The Answer is: ALL games count!

Not just games against the worst teams in CUSA, but ALL games against all teams, good and bad, in CUSA.

Not just conference games, but ALL regular-season games.

Not just bowl games against G5 teams, but ALL bowl games.

We can go back and forth forever on our respective points (and probably will). But it is year 9 of the DBD, and counting. That is kind of the main issue here.

We still don't know much about DBD going in to season 9. He has a losing overall record at Rice, and his results are wildly inconsistent within seasons. He's won some minor bowls against poor competition and has folded in all but one game against superior teams for 8 years. He took 8 years to be able to win against the very worst teams consistently. Perhaps others could have done at least as well perhaps in less time?

I wonder aloud what the results of the CUSA Champ game last year would have been had it been played in Huntington against a jacked -up home Marshall team and crowd instead of a somewhat perplexed and down team at Rice stadium? Good result there for DBD and Rice, but not sure it would have worked the same in the other scenario. To me, a truly good coach wins those games no matter where they are played.
01-13-2015 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MemOwl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,031
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Owls
Location: Houston
Post: #43
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 04:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I don't think the man coaches a very entertaining brand of football game that draws new fans in.

Does this matter? Is it better to win boring than lose with excitement? What is the indifference curve between winning games and playing an exciting style?

Note: this is a general question for the board, not a criticism of your post

winning and exciting are not mutually exclusive. But there are some more exciting teams that don't win as much as some less exciting teams.

Follow up--what is the definition of exciting? Is there an objective standard, or is it on a list with pornography and jazz?
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2015 05:54 PM by MemOwl.)
01-13-2015 05:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MemOwl Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,031
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Owls
Location: Houston
Post: #44
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
here is another question--to what factors should we ascribe the recent improvement in record?

We can and will continue to quibble about pace and national perception and signature wins and quality of wins, but the change in W-L trajectory is stark and significant.

ie, Bailiff won 24 games between Nicholls and Memphis-2012, while losing 43

since memphis, he has won another 24 while losing only 10.

that is a sharp change that is almost unprecedented because coaches with 24-43 records get fired at the 99% confidence level. (Frank Beamer was 24-40-2 in 6 years at Va Tech, then went 53-17 over the next 6 years with 2 BCS bowls appearances)

What is the relative contribution of

-better players
-better assistant coaches
-weaker competition
-DB's personal effectiveness independent of talent and assistant coaches

I wonder if Beamer has ever commented on what he attributes the Va Tech turnaround to. Like Bailiff, he had a (longer and more consistently successful) stint in FCS before getting his FBS job.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2015 05:54 PM by MemOwl.)
01-13-2015 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 05:49 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  here is another question--to what factors should we ascribe the recent improvement in record?

We can and will continue to quibble about pace and national perception and signature wins and quality of wins, but the change in W-L trajectory is stark and significant.

ie, Bailiff won 24 games between Nicholls and Memphis-2012, while losing 43

since memphis, he has won another 24 while losing only 10.

that is a sharp change that is almost unprecedented because coaches with 24-43 records get fired at the 99% confidence level. (Frank Beamer was 24-40-2 in 6 years at Va Tech, then went 53-17 over the next 6 years with 2 BCS bowls appearances)

What is the relative contribution of

-better players
-better assistant coaches
-weaker competition
-DB's personal effectiveness independent of talent and assistant coaches

I wonder if Beamer has ever commented on what he attributes the Va Tech turnaround to. Like Bailiff, he had a (longer and more consistently successful) stint in FCS before getting his FBS job.

Probably a lot of factors

One worth noting is that in 2012, the 5th year (red shirted) seniors were David Bailiff's first "full year" recruiting class. (I.e., he and his staff were at Rice rot the complete full year of recruiting)

Everyone on the 2012 team and beyond was recruited by David Bailiff and staff.

Undoubtedly not the only factor, but probably an important one, since most here believe David and Co. are good recruiters.

Everyone seems to understand that Rhodes is going to take a little time to get things where he wants them.
01-13-2015 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,274
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #46
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 04:36 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  agree 100% with Owl69etc. Agree with Antarius.

hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? Fresno is someone, Christmas eve is sometime, Hawaii is a place. we came, we saw, we beat them. what's the problem? we were barely favored, so in the minds of the great unwashed public, we beat somebody. Had a TCU alum tell me he enjoyed the game.

(01-13-2015 04:21 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Good grief. Keep on believing what you want to believe.

well, if you wish to go that way....hey, anyone, anytime,anyplace? LA Tech is someone, Nov 29, 2014 is sometime, Ruston, LA is a place. we came, we saw, we got historically cremated by them.

And:

Marshall is someone, Nov 15, 2014 is sometime, Huntington, WV is a place. we came, we saw, we got smacked by them.

what's the problem? I'm not even talking about our two opportunity games against ND and A&M? in the minds of the great unwashed public, we're the same old Rice.

So what is the point of the anytime, etc, mantra? Which games do not count toward that?

The point of that phrase, as originally voiced (I believe) by Bobby Bowden back in the mid-to-late '70s), was as a rising program aspiring to join the big boys of college football, we'll take on any of the perennial powers, at their place, and any time they'd agree to schedule...and he did just that...and won his fair share of those road games against elite teams. Boise State and TCU followed the same model, but since they were not independent (as FSU was at the time), they could only schedule a maximum of 3 - 4 of those elite road games a year.

It doesn't mean any Tom, Dick and Harry team, and playing those lousy teams at home.
01-13-2015 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,869
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 58
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #47
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.
01-13-2015 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #48
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

Bingo. On days when Hatfield's offense was clicking at 400+ yards and we were winning by double digits, it was great to be in Rice Stadium, whether we threw 5 passes, 3 passes or 0 passes.
01-13-2015 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,701
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 118
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2015 11:17 PM by At Ease.)
01-13-2015 11:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 10,544
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #50
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 04:26 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i just think you want us to fold on DB when we probably should be holding. Let 's play the hand out, just as if it was up to either of us.

I admit I wonder what the results would be if JK had a clean slate to work with in hiring his type of football coach the way he did in basketball. I believe most of us are impressed with both his choice of Rhoades in basketball and how he went about it. Sure it could backfire or implode, but I believe we'll know what we have in Rhoades a lot sooner than 8 years. I do not think JK would have hired DBD from the get-go. Inheriting an incumbent the way he did as an AD outsider made football more complicated for him. I would like JK to get his chance to hire a football coach at Rice at some point, and be around to see how he does.

This is exactly the Transformation vs Incrementalism issue.

MBB was so bad that JK could have hired you or me and our attendance would have gone up. A lot of loyal Rice fans threw in the towel with Braun, Marcos and Slick Rick and unless the trio was removed wasn't going to show up for a MBB game. As a result, JK has nearly universal backing from the Owl faithful to hire a new up and coming coach with no downside.

FB has not driven away the Owl faithful (part of that is the nature of FB > MBB to most and part of that is we haven't gone 5-26 or the equivalent recently). Removing DB after 3 bowl games in a row wont increase attendance unless we somehow pick up Urban Meyer or the likes.

Since we have trusted Dr. K with MBB and supported his choice of coach, I am willing to support his decisions with FB in the next few years (especially next year). I have no doubt that if he felt we could do better or weren't getting what we needed, he would look elsewhere, but given the situation now and how we have performed recently, there may be some benefit in waiting a little longer to see where we can go.
01-13-2015 11:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 10,544
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #51
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

With our schedule being how it is, we have to play the long game. We need more than a few years of winning to truly convince people that Rice football isn't terrible. As I have posted before, I know alums who asked if Rice had won a single game last year when, in fact, we had won 10. If alums have this perception, the general public probably feels this way or worse.

We also need a signature win. Beat UT next year and follow it up with a 10 win season and we will probably see more people in the stands going forward.
01-13-2015 11:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #52
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).
01-14-2015 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,926
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 470
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #53
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-13-2015 07:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  It doesn't mean any Tom, Dick and Harry team, and playing those lousy teams at home.

so it doen't really meananybody, or anywhere. Got it.
01-14-2015 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,274
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #54
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2015 12:12 AM by waltgreenberg.)
01-14-2015 12:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,926
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 470
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #55
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 12:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).


Yep, need to win more. yep, need to get some big wins. Neither of those goals require a new coach nor does a new coach guarantee more and better wins.
01-14-2015 12:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #56
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 12:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 05:38 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Follow up--what is the definition of exciting?
Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).

I'm not sure what your point is here.

It's not that we don't need to win.

Is it that no one really cares unless the majority of our games are against P5 schools? If so, that means our attendance will improve when we get into a P5 conference (I'll agree with that by the way)?

Of course we won't get into a P5 conference unless our attendance and fan interest improve. Kind of a Catch 22.

I know it's not to play all our games on the road to fool people into thinking the great crowds are there to see us.

All I said in the post above was that, generally speaking, more people will show up if we're winning games (winning more than we're losing, and hence getting bowl recognition) than if we are losing the majority of our games.

It's not that controversial a topic/concept. At Ease (correctly) has pointed out that Rice attendance is not good even when we're winning. I just don't see the alternative (losing) as a particularly helpful strategy with regard to attendance.

I'm not arguing that we're going to bring in tons of casual fans, but even non-SEC, non Big 12 casual (non-Rice) fans would rather watch an SEC or Big 12 game in the comfort of their home on TV than come to Rice Stadium to watch a losing team. My last sentence above was about casual non-Rice fans, not die-hard SEC-rooters.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2015 06:58 AM by Rick Gerlach.)
01-14-2015 06:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,274
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #57
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 12:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).


Yep, need to win more. yep, need to get some big wins. Neither of those goals require a new coach nor does a new coach guarantee more and better wins.

That's your opinion; not mine. A new coach does not guarantee anything, but Bailiff's 0-50 record vs. Top 50, with almost every single one of those loses being blow outs, combined with his rather complacent public comments after such losses (not to mention almost no victories against teams ranked ahead of us), gives at least me considerable doubt as to whether a new coach is required to get us to the next level. Bailiff has not only not gotten us any big wins (save for last year's Marshall game), he hasn't even had his teams competing in games against Top 35 - 50 opponents (let alone Top 25).
01-14-2015 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,274
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #58
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 06:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 09:43 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Winning.

More precisely, winning is, to a nearly complete extent, a sufficient condition for being exciting. In the short term, it is probably possible to be exciting without winning, but in the long run, winning is what attracts.

If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).

I'm not sure what your point is here.

It's not that we don't need to win.

Is it that no one really cares unless the majority of our games are against P5 schools? If so, that means our attendance will improve when we get into a P5 conference (I'll agree with that by the way)?

Of course we won't get into a P5 conference unless our attendance and fan interest improve. Kind of a Catch 22.

I know it's not to play all our games on the road to fool people into thinking the great crowds are there to see us.

All I said in the post above was that, generally speaking, more people will show up if we're winning games (winning more than we're losing, and hence getting bowl recognition) than if we are losing the majority of our games.

It's not that controversial a topic/concept. At Ease (correctly) has pointed out that Rice attendance is not good even when we're winning. I just don't see the alternative (losing) as a particularly helpful strategy with regard to attendance.

I'm not arguing that we're going to bring in tons of casual fans, but even non-SEC, non Big 12 casual (non-Rice) fans would rather watch an SEC or Big 12 game in the comfort of their home on TV than come to Rice Stadium to watch a losing team. My last sentence above was about casual non-Rice fans, not die-hard SEC-rooters.

Rick, my point is pretty crystal clear and has been consistent; you are simply choosing to ignore it. You keep talking about win totals in pointing to our "unprecedented" 3-year run, and concluding that we continue to make progress, and appear (in almost every one of your posts) to conveniently ignore the quality (or more to the point, total lack of quality) of wins over this "historically successful" period. My point is that unless we can start beating teams ranked in the Top 50/75 (let alone Top 25 - 35), and consistently compete with teams ranked in the Top 35 - 50-- and not simply rack up 7+ wins each season against teams ranked outside the Top 75 (with the majority coming against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division), the perception of Rice nationally and to those not following Rice or CUSA football will not change. No one else will notice and no one will care.

As for the historically unprecedented claim-- yes, that's true in terms of win totals and bowl appearances, but that's only because the level of competition has markedly decreased and virtually every team with a winning record now goes bowling. We had plenty of Rice teams over the past 50 years, particularly those in the '70s and '90s, that competed far better against quality and elite competition than we have over the past 3 year run.
01-14-2015 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #59
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-14-2015 08:32 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 06:54 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-14-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-13-2015 11:16 PM)At Ease Wrote:  If winning was the definition of excitement, one would have expected the attendance to have picked up over these last 2.5 years.

Recent experiences over at Reckling might best exhibit the disconnect between the two.

For the fans who come, winning is generally more exciting than losing.

The attendance issue, IMO, is more about getting people to care enough to show up. The issue isn't likely to be whether they are excited by winning (or not), but whether they care enough to come or whether they have other priorities.

I come unless I have a family conflict. With all three of my kids heavily into athletics at this point in time, I have more conflicts than I used to. There will come a time when that (sadly) is no longer an issue, and my attendance will be at 100% again. As it is, my kids love coming to the games when they aren't playing in one themselves.

Apart from that, I'm not going to watch another game on TV, or plan activities that don't involve my kids. Saturday work is easy enough to schedule to avoid an issue.

Rice fans who care either will come regardless of the opponent, or will be more likely to come if they think we may win.

Rice alumni who don't really care need a bandwagon to join to show up (read: winning often) or an invitation from classmates.

Non-Rice sports fans are much the same, but add a 3rd reason to come (1. we're playing their school, 2. invited by a Rice friend, 3. chance to join a winning bandwagon), but in theory they have lots of TV games and their own schools to compete for their interest.

In pretty much every case, the chance to root for a winning team is going to appeal to the casual or non-Rice fan (the latter either adopting Rice or rooting for his school when they are in town).

Unless you personally know a player on the team, there isn't much incentive for a casual fan to adopt a losing team to watch.

Rice starts in a hole in that regard. 29 straight losing seasons and 45 plus years between bowls takes time to overcome (this is what Antarius alludes to when he says friends ask him whether we won any games this year (or last year), as we prepare for bowl games).

We really do need to continue winning more than we lose if we want to reach casual Rice fans or any non-Rice interest. People are already too busy watching the Big 12 or SEC on TV (or in person).

Got news for you, Rick-- the casual fan who watches the Big 12 or SEC on TV will not notice-- and could care less-- if Rice posts another 6 consecutive seasons of 7+ wins and Bowl appearances if the only teams we can beat are nobodies (in the college football landscape) ranked outside the Top 75. Simply racking up wins against the dredge of college football is not going to get us anywhere that we're not now. You keep touting our unprecedented 3 year run (which is in reality been a 2 1/2 year run), but we have just one quality win during that span....and it was against a G5 team 99% of the football watching public doesn't care about (outside of watching a movie about the program's rebuild from the horrific plane crash).

I'm not sure what your point is here.

It's not that we don't need to win.

Is it that no one really cares unless the majority of our games are against P5 schools? If so, that means our attendance will improve when we get into a P5 conference (I'll agree with that by the way)?

Of course we won't get into a P5 conference unless our attendance and fan interest improve. Kind of a Catch 22.

I know it's not to play all our games on the road to fool people into thinking the great crowds are there to see us.

All I said in the post above was that, generally speaking, more people will show up if we're winning games (winning more than we're losing, and hence getting bowl recognition) than if we are losing the majority of our games.

It's not that controversial a topic/concept. At Ease (correctly) has pointed out that Rice attendance is not good even when we're winning. I just don't see the alternative (losing) as a particularly helpful strategy with regard to attendance.

I'm not arguing that we're going to bring in tons of casual fans, but even non-SEC, non Big 12 casual (non-Rice) fans would rather watch an SEC or Big 12 game in the comfort of their home on TV than come to Rice Stadium to watch a losing team. My last sentence above was about casual non-Rice fans, not die-hard SEC-rooters.

Rick, my point is pretty crystal clear and has been consistent; you are simply choosing to ignore it. You keep talking about win totals in pointing to our "unprecedented" 3-year run, and concluding that we continue to make progress, and appear (in almost every one of your posts) to conveniently ignore the quality (or more to the point, total lack of quality) of wins over this "historically successful" period. My point is that unless we can start beating teams ranked in the Top 50/75 (let alone Top 25 - 35), and consistently compete with teams ranked in the Top 35 - 50-- and not simply rack up 7+ wins each season against teams ranked outside the Top 75 (with the majority coming against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division), the perception of Rice nationally and to those not following Rice or CUSA football will not change. No one else will notice and no one will care.

As for the historically unprecedented claim-- yes, that's true in terms of win totals and bowl appearances, but that's only because the level of competition has markedly decreased and virtually every team with a winning record now goes bowling. We had plenty of Rice teams over the past 50 years, particularly those in the '70s and '90s, that competed far better against quality and elite competition than we have over the past 3 year run.
My two posts immediately above are about attendance and winning, nothing more.

I have never said that these teams are better (or worse) than our 1994, 1996-97, 2001 teams. They still have accomplished something those teams haven't

As to the competitiveness of our teams from the early 1960's to 1992 - we had an occasional competitive team (I'm partial to 1980-81 myself) - bot we basically 'competed' ourself out of P5 football with 29 straight non-winng seasons and a much longer bowl drought. When yo lose that long you absolutely minimize your fan base and kill all outside interest. Where we are now is a direct result of 1965-1992. That is why we lost all outside credibility.

We need to win and we are now. Crapping all over the current 3-year span of accomplishments is pointless and counterproductive. Continuing to win and changing perceptions are the only hand we have to play (other than off field improvements).

We can disagree on what the best immediate action may be to continue winning, but until we start losing again OldOwl is probably going to stay in the minority position (but he, you and others have every right to continue to voice your concerns).

I am going to continue to be glad we're winning at the "unprecedented" rate. Those aren't my words. They can rightly be qualified, but they still are accurate.
01-14-2015 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
picrig Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 108
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
Edit: If someone wants to tell me how to edit my little handmade table of records, I'd be happy to.

Can I just make a point about this whole record vs. Top 50 teams point that keeps coming up over and over again?

First, let me say up front that our record vs. Top 50 is abysmal. Our record vs. Top 60 is abysmal. And vs. the outside of Top 60 is pretty good to very good.

The consensus (with which I agree) is that we need to be better against the Top 50/60. And that this is what is holding us back. I think, though, that the reality is MOST teams are pretty bad against the Top 60 and pretty good against the bottom 60. So I thought I'd take a look over the last three years (what seems to be the new baseline for Rice football) using Massey ratings.

Team Record vs. Top 60 Record vs. 60+
Rice 0-9 25-6
Marshall 2-4 26-8
West Virginia 8-17 10-3
Virginia Tech 12-11 12-6
NC State 1-16 17-4
ECU 3-7 23-6
UH 1-8 20-9

Note that NC State's one win against top 60 was against the #60 team. We have a win against Marshall who was about #65. Not sure those wins are substantively different. So we basically profile out as NC State. Or UH (their one win was against #41 Memphis). Or Marshall (their two top 60 wins came against #60 and #52).

I don't know if I have some earth shattering point other than most other teams who we say we are higher in the proverbial pecking order than us (via either P5 association or being perceived as top tier G5) don't have vastly different resumes than us. They don't beat Top 60 teams often (and when they do, it's almost never a top 50 team), and even P5 teams who aren't at the top half of their conference don't have great records against the Top 50. Virginia Tech is the anomaly here. They're pretty crappy against crappy teams and pretty good against good teams.

Of course I'd like to be better against better teams. And we need to be to get in the conversation. But this representation that we suck against good teams and other schools we're striving to be like (P5 or "higher level" G5) don't struggle against Top 50 teams is disingenuous.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2015 09:40 AM by picrig.)
01-14-2015 09:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.