(01-15-2015 08:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 01:10 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Lastly, we both agree that "regressing to 6-6 or even another 7-5 would be just that, a regression. Then we would have a negative trend, where now we are generally positive." The only small nit I have with that statement is that word generally. It is a small sample of only 2 seasons after the 6 that came before it which are highly erratic and tend as much to the downside as to the up. As well, the quality of wins in those two seasons is highly suspect, as has been espoused by Walt and other posters, including myself. Therefore I have no confidence which way it will go this upcoming season. It's a coin-flip.

So I actually did a quick trend analysis.

Since the '09 season (6 years of data), which one could argue was on Graham for gutting the recruiting class we would have relied on that year, we have a positive, linear trend in games won. The r-squared value is 0.80, which is an insanely high r-squared value for real world data. If we go less than 9-3 next year, we hurt this argument and it becomes a less defined trend, but anything 9-3 and above keeps us moving upwards.

There is no question that, based on the number of games won, we are still on a very significant, upward trajectory. Whether we can maintain it is the question.

But that's based entirely on starting with the 2009 season? Why not start with 2007, when the DBD began? Or if you start with our winning 2010 season, which was the first with Bailiff recruits playing a major role (even if our upperclass leaders and stars were not recruited by him), you'd get a very different result. In reality, we have been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride with Bailiff as head coach, with the only consistency being our inability to beat or compete with Top 75 teams.

I explained my reason, but here you go:

2007-present: low r-squared of 0.11. But the 2008 record is an obvious statistical outlier. When it is removed, it gets bumped to a healthy 0.75.

2010-present: Still a very healthy 0.76 r-squared value.

In reality, from a record stand point, we haven't been on a roller coaster, but a pretty slow and steady climb. That '08 season was an anomaly, both statistically and actually. Bailiff was the coach that season, but we all pretty much agree that we were helmed by one of our best QBs of all time and two of our best WRs of all time.

edit: We talk one here about a recent, upward trend with regard to winning, and often point to 2012 as when that started, the first year since '08 without a losing record. But if you look at our win totals, this past year is the first year since '09 where DB and co. have won less games than the year before. Competition has changed (but if I remember, the average rating of teams played actually hasn't moved much) but if we are talking about trends, it's pretty darn clear, IMO, where we are RIGHT NOW. Next year will help define the picture even more.

OK, RiceLad, thank you for doing the two trend analysis. So it looks like OO's and my estimation of 9-3 this year as being a "good" season is pretty much spot on. Anything less will be a regression, as we both had agreed in our posts a bit above. So that will be the expectation: we will go at least 9-3 this season to be in favor of DBD keeping the Dynasty going. Less, we will be in favor of dumping him.

As I pointed out, this does not take into account quality of wins, it is just raw numbers. He can still lose to Texas, Baylor and the best 3rd team he faces in the regular season next fall and still go 9-3.

I'd really like that win against Texas, but I'll go with the above for now.

As for the quality wins trend, what would be the r-squared, seeing as how it has been mentioned that Marshall in CUSA Champ game last year was the only quality victory in the DBD? You may start in 2009 or in 2007.

Thanks. 9-3 it is. Everybody else on board with that?

(01-15-2015 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Am glad to be on a board in which everybody speaks fluent statistics. other than me, of course, I forgot it all as soon as grades were posted 50 years ago.

i appreciate Lad's work, it confirms what I was feeling intuitively, that we are on an upward trend. Understand and agree that it is slower and shallower than any of us would like. to the kids in the back seat who keep asking, are we there yet?, I say no, not yet, but we are getting there.

The definition of good season - I picked on 9-3 Because it would be a season which most of us would deem good, not great. The talk about 11+ wins could raise expectations to the point where that 9-3 would be perceived as a failure. Did not allot losses to any specific game or project the season. right now a lot of us are ready to write off 2015 if we lose the first game. That is all I am cautioning about.

I don't think anyone would be writing off the season with a loss in Austin, but it's a golden opportunity to FINALLY get that first signature win and garner national attention. If we lose, it's only going to increase the perception of same old, same old, with no progress. We might be trending positive in our W-L record, but we've made absolutely no progress in our ability to beat teams ranked inside the Top 75...or compete with teams ranked inside the Top 50. At some point that has got to change...and with the DBD it's now 9 years and counting.

(01-15-2015 09:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  Here's the rest of the data on the so-called "next up" G5 teams. Parentheses after each team are the # of teams ranked worse than 100/200 that they've played over the period.

Team/vsT25/vsT50/vsT75/vs75+

Boise St/0-2/3-3/6-3/22-1 (17)(1)
UCF/1-3/2-5/5-0/23-1 (18)(2)
ECU/0-1/2-4/1-5/23-3 (17)(4)
NIU/0-2/1-2/7-1/27-2 (19)(6)
UTSA/0-2/0-5/1-6/18-4 (12)(6)
UConn/0-0/1-7/2-8/7-11 (10)(2)
Cinci/0-1/1-6/5-2/22-2 (12)(4)
Memphis/0-2/0-5/2-4/15-9 (15)(1)
Marshall/0-0/0-4/5-3/23-5 (14)(7)
Rice/0-1/0-7/1-3/24-4 (19)(3)

Total/1-13/10-48/35-35/204-42

Unscientific and extremely quick observations. These teams basically don't beat top 20 teams. Nor do they play top 20 teams (average of 0.47/year). They really don't beat top 50 teams very much, either. If you take out Boise St. and UCF (the teams w/the best resumes on the list) and just leave the other 8, record against T50 is 5-40 (11%). So if we win our next game against the top 50, we'll be right on that average:-p. Teams are 35-35 against T51-75, which shows pretty convincingly that these teams probably fall in that range. These teams almost all dominate those ranked below 75. Memphis and UConn are the exceptions to that. But, everyone else should feel pretty confident against anyone ranked >75.

Random observation. NIU's schedule is horrendous. They tie (with Rice) for most games played against teams ranked 101-200. They are also tied (with UTSA) for most games played against teams ranked 200+ (6). That's a whopping 60% of their games played against teams ranked 100+, 14% against teams ranked 200+.

Do with the data whatever you wish:-)

OK, thank you PicRig very much for posting this. I would say our impression of Boise is skewed towards their success over the last 10 years (or whenever they started their run,) and heavily influenced by their performance in their signature bowl victories, which adds credence tho the argument that people's impressions of a program can be somewhat different from the hard reality.

Could you do one more for just Boise State and UCF over the last 10 years or so, so we can see how that looks? You don't have to do the rest, because, as you mentioned, those two are probably the prime competition for move-ups that we can do anything about as far as trying to match their performance. UConn, Cinn, and perhaps Memphis are interesting to some conferences for different reasons, more having to do with basketball and previous status.

I'm trying to work myself and the board on some consensus. I don't want to argue endlessly (although, it is a long offseason, heh, heh )

Thanks in advance.

(01-15-2015 10:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  Here's the rest of the data on the so-called "next up" G5 teams. Parentheses after each team are the # of teams ranked worse than 100/200 that they've played over the period.

Team/vsT25/vsT50/vsT75/vs75+

Boise St/0-2/3-3/6-3/22-1 (17)(1)
UCF/1-3/2-5/5-0/23-1 (18)(2)
ECU/0-1/2-4/1-5/23-3 (17)(4)
NIU/0-2/1-2/7-1/27-2 (19)(6)
UTSA/0-2/0-5/1-6/18-4 (12)(6)
UConn/0-0/1-7/2-8/7-11 (10)(2)
Cinci/0-1/1-6/5-2/22-2 (12)(4)
Memphis/0-2/0-5/2-4/15-9 (15)(1)
Marshall/0-0/0-4/5-3/23-5 (14)(7)
Rice/0-1/0-7/1-3/24-4 (19)(3)

Total/1-13/10-48/35-35/204-42

Unscientific and extremely quick observations. These teams basically don't beat top 20 teams. Nor do they play top 20 teams (average of 0.47/year). They really don't beat top 50 teams very much, either. If you take out Boise St. and UCF (the teams w/the best resumes on the list) and just leave the other 8, record against T50 is 5-40 (11%). So if we win our next game against the top 50, we'll be right on that average:-p. Teams are 35-35 against T51-75, which shows pretty convincingly that these teams probably fall in that range. These teams almost all dominate those ranked below 75. Memphis and UConn are the exceptions to that. But, everyone else should feel pretty confident against anyone ranked >75.

Random observation. NIU's schedule is horrendous. They tie (with Rice) for most games played against teams ranked 101-200. They are also tied (with UTSA) for most games played against teams ranked 200+ (6). That's a whopping 60% of their games played against teams ranked 100+, 14% against teams ranked 200+.

Do with the data whatever you wish:-)

This may be the most helpful post in the history of the many, many threads on Bailiff, thanks!

My takeaways:

-Record against 50-75 is not good and needs to improve, as some have asserted.

-BUT, if that record improves, even without any wins against 0-25, even with just a couple against 26-50, we're right up there statistically with the elite of the G5.

-I think it also strengthens the argument for "signature wins" - I was genuinely surprised at Boise's and UCF's records against 1-25. Maybe the Boise bowl game against OU and UCF's against Baylor created an impression which has colored how I perceive those programs... [Edit for clarification: I tended to think Walt and others overstate the importance of signature wins, now I think perhaps they don't...]


In the end this just confirms my gut feeling - we are annoyingly still in the gray area. I can't look at that chart and think "Fire Bailiff!" I can't look at the Marshall and especially La Tech games and feel confident we can start getting those 50-75 wins...

1. As I've posted elsewhere, I take issue with being satisfied with comparing ourselves to the other G5s; that's effectively raising the white flag in defeat. You are-- and you're going to remain-- who you compare yourselves with. Do you think UH or UCF or Boise State gives a hoot whether they're in the Top 5 of the G5s?

2. You cannot simply look at record vs. Top 25 to gauge the number of signature wins. As pointed out in other threads, most national college football fans and the national media focus on the Top 10 - 15; not the Top 25. Second, a signature win is a win against a perceived perennial football power; not necessarily one against a Top 25 team. For example, if we had beaten Marshall this year, it would not have been a signature win even though Marshall finished ranked in the Top 25, since it would not have received national attention or changed the perception of Rice football. Similarly, a win against UT next year (or a win against Notre Dame or A&M this year) would be widely perceived as a signature win even though Texas is not likely to be ranked in the Top 25. Texas, ND, A&M, Michigan are all perceived as football powers even when they're in the midst of a down cycle. For us, beating Texas adds the additional benefit of in-state recruiting bragging rights.

(01-15-2015 11:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Am glad to be on a board in which everybody speaks fluent statistics. other than me, of course, I forgot it all as soon as grades were posted 50 years ago.

i appreciate Lad's work, it confirms what I was feeling intuitively, that we are on an upward trend. Understand and agree that it is slower and shallower than any of us would like. to the kids in the back seat who keep asking, are we there yet?, I say no, not yet, but we are getting there.

The definition of good season - I picked on 9-3 Because it would be a season which most of us would deem good, not great. The talk about 11+ wins could raise expectations to the point where that 9-3 would be perceived as a failure. Did not allot losses to any specific game or project the season. right now a lot of us are ready to write off 2015 if we lose the first game. That is all I am cautioning about.

I don't think anyone would be writing off the season with a loss in Austin, but it's a golden opportunity to FINALLY get that first signature win and garner national attention. If we lose, it's only going to increase the perception of same old, same old, with no progress. We might be trending positive in our W-L record, but we've made absolutely no progress in our ability to beat teams ranked inside the Top 75...or compete with teams ranked inside the Top 50. At some point that has got to change...and with the DBD it's now 9 years and counting.

You're right about not making progress in our ability to beat quality teams, but I would expect the progress that we are seeing (consistently beating those ranked < 75) to come before progressing on to beating the big boys. I'm not surprised we haven't beaten anyone of note, because I didn't ever really expect us to. We are now producing results that warrant that expectation, and it is quickly going to be surprising to me when we don't beat someone of note.

You're also right that next year will be a great opportunity for us to beat Texas, but not because they are down (honestly, they are not), but because we have a team who should be confident and have the talent to actually pull off the upset.

(01-15-2015 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 08:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 01:10 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Lastly, we both agree that "regressing to 6-6 or even another 7-5 would be just that, a regression. Then we would have a negative trend, where now we are generally positive." The only small nit I have with that statement is that word generally. It is a small sample of only 2 seasons after the 6 that came before it which are highly erratic and tend as much to the downside as to the up. As well, the quality of wins in those two seasons is highly suspect, as has been espoused by Walt and other posters, including myself. Therefore I have no confidence which way it will go this upcoming season. It's a coin-flip.

So I actually did a quick trend analysis.

Since the '09 season (6 years of data), which one could argue was on Graham for gutting the recruiting class we would have relied on that year, we have a positive, linear trend in games won. The r-squared value is 0.80, which is an insanely high r-squared value for real world data. If we go less than 9-3 next year, we hurt this argument and it becomes a less defined trend, but anything 9-3 and above keeps us moving upwards.

There is no question that, based on the number of games won, we are still on a very significant, upward trajectory. Whether we can maintain it is the question.

But that's based entirely on starting with the 2009 season? Why not start with 2007, when the DBD began? Or if you start with our winning 2010 season, which was the first with Bailiff recruits playing a major role (even if our upperclass leaders and stars were not recruited by him), you'd get a very different result. In reality, we have been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride with Bailiff as head coach, with the only consistency being our inability to beat or compete with Top 75 teams.

I explained my reason, but here you go:

2007-present: low r-squared of 0.11. But the 2008 record is an obvious statistical outlier. When it is removed, it gets bumped to a healthy 0.75.

2010-present: Still a very healthy 0.76 r-squared value.

In reality, from a record stand point, we haven't been on a roller coaster, but a pretty slow and steady climb. That '08 season was an anomaly, both statistically and actually. Bailiff was the coach that season, but we all pretty much agree that we were helmed by one of our best QBs of all time and two of our best WRs of all time.

edit: We talk one here about a recent, upward trend with regard to winning, and often point to 2012 as when that started, the first year since '08 without a losing record. But if you look at our win totals, this past year is the first year since '09 where DB and co. have won less games than the year before. Competition has changed (but if I remember, the average rating of teams played actually hasn't moved much) but if we are talking about trends, it's pretty darn clear, IMO, where we are RIGHT NOW. Next year will help define the picture even more.

OK, RiceLad, thank you for doing the two trend analysis. So it looks like OO's and my estimation of 9-3 this year as being a "good" season is pretty much spot on. Anything less will be a regression, as we both had agreed in our posts a bit above. So that will be the expectation: we will go at least 9-3 this season to be in favor of DBD keeping the Dynasty going. Less, we will be in favor of dumping him.

As I pointed out, this does not take into account quality of wins, it is just raw numbers. He can still lose to Texas, Baylor and the best 3rd team he faces in the regular season next fall and still go 9-3.

I'd really like that win against Texas, but I'll go with the above for now.

As for the quality wins trend, what would be the r-squared, seeing as how it has been mentioned that Marshall in CUSA Champ game last year was the only quality victory in the DBD? You may start in 2009 or in 2007.

Thanks. 9-3 it is. Everybody else on board with that?

As I said a couple months ago, with what we have returning next year, coupled with our schedule, anything less than 8-4 next year and Bailiff's job should at least be in some jeopardy. Several people jumped all over me, and started throwing personal attacks at me, for that prediction.

(01-15-2015 11:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Am glad to be on a board in which everybody speaks fluent statistics. other than me, of course, I forgot it all as soon as grades were posted 50 years ago.

i appreciate Lad's work, it confirms what I was feeling intuitively, that we are on an upward trend. Understand and agree that it is slower and shallower than any of us would like. to the kids in the back seat who keep asking, are we there yet?, I say no, not yet, but we are getting there.

The definition of good season - I picked on 9-3 Because it would be a season which most of us would deem good, not great. The talk about 11+ wins could raise expectations to the point where that 9-3 would be perceived as a failure. Did not allot losses to any specific game or project the season. right now a lot of us are ready to write off 2015 if we lose the first game. That is all I am cautioning about.

I don't think anyone would be writing off the season with a loss in Austin, but it's a golden opportunity to FINALLY get that first signature win and garner national attention. If we lose, it's only going to increase the perception of same old, same old, with no progress. We might be trending positive in our W-L record, but we've made absolutely no progress in our ability to beat teams ranked inside the Top 75...or compete with teams ranked inside the Top 50. At some point that has got to change...and with the DBD it's now 9 years and counting.

You're right about not making progress in our ability to beat quality teams, but I would expect the progress that we are seeing (consistently beating those ranked < 75) to come before progressing on to beating the big boys. I'm not surprised we haven't beaten anyone of note, because I didn't ever really expect us to. We are now producing results that warrant that expectation, and it is quickly going to be surprising to me when we don't beat someone of note.

You're also right that next year will be a great opportunity for us to beat Texas, but not because they are down (honestly, they are not), but because we have a team who should be confident and have the talent to actually pull off the upset.

My only issue with the above comment is that I do not consider teams ranked #50 - 75 as "quality" teams; rather, they are simply mediocre. Teams ranked below the Top 75 are just plain bad. Remember, there are only 125 or so teams in the FBS division.

(01-15-2015 11:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Am glad to be on a board in which everybody speaks fluent statistics. other than me, of course, I forgot it all as soon as grades were posted 50 years ago.

i appreciate Lad's work, it confirms what I was feeling intuitively, that we are on an upward trend. Understand and agree that it is slower and shallower than any of us would like. to the kids in the back seat who keep asking, are we there yet?, I say no, not yet, but we are getting there.

The definition of good season - I picked on 9-3 Because it would be a season which most of us would deem good, not great. The talk about 11+ wins could raise expectations to the point where that 9-3 would be perceived as a failure. Did not allot losses to any specific game or project the season. right now a lot of us are ready to write off 2015 if we lose the first game. That is all I am cautioning about.

I don't think anyone would be writing off the season with a loss in Austin, but it's a golden opportunity to FINALLY get that first signature win and garner national attention. If we lose, it's only going to increase the perception of same old, same old, with no progress. We might be trending positive in our W-L record, but we've made absolutely no progress in our ability to beat teams ranked inside the Top 75...or compete with teams ranked inside the Top 50. At some point that has got to change...and with the DBD it's now 9 years and counting.

I'm glad to be on a board like this as well, OO and Walt. We are all fortunate to be Rice people.

Walt, I agree with you in that raw numbers and statistical analysis are only a portion of what makes up people's impressions of a program, whether it is you or I or OO or RiceLad or Rick or Owl69 or Ham or any other poster, or JK, Bobby Tudor, Leebron, or the general football-watching public not affiliated with Rice.

Our gut feelings DO count for something. College football has been and is still dominated by opinion polls and committees of individulas, so raw numbers and computer formulas can only go so far.

As far as Signature wins: I'd like some plural at this time. JK has mentioned Signature wins specifically himself. But it occurred to me to ask: where are these signature wins possible over the next few seasons?

It seems to be pretty clear that with the bowl games realignments, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for Rice or any other g% to have a real shot at the kind of bowl signature wins Boise and perhaps TCU enjoyed back in the day. The P5 has learned their lesion: don't give the G5 schools opportunities to embarrass you and ruin your narrative of superiority in big bowl games. Even pitting Boise against Arizona this year was along these same lines: no one thinks AZ to be a REAL p5 power like Oklahoma, AL, Fl State, Ohio State, etc..

That leaves only two options for Signature win opportunities for Rice: I call them "Opportunity Games." Games against traditional P5 powers (sorry, any G5 win at this point, even against a ranked team, does not qualify for Signature status) that makes the average college football fan go "Whoa!" qualify.

For those come in Rice's regular season schedule and in the access bowl. That's pretty much it. Beating a school like Illinois in HOD bowl does not count. No one nationally is really impressed with that kind of thing. Sorry.

Rice's upcoming opportunity games are:

2015
Sept. 12 @ Texas
Sept. 26 @Baylor

2016
Sept. 3 @Stanford
Sept. 24 Baylor

2017
Sept. 2 Stanford

2018
None

That is it. Assuming Baylor stays relevant and Stanford does not fall back, we don't really have too much in the way of opportunity games, unless we schedule more.

No one will care if we beat Wake Forest except us. Northwestern we have played very recently, and no one nationally gave a hoot.

We need to be sure to schedule two Opportunity games every season, and vary who we play a bit more that just Texas schools all the time. We need some new Opportunity schools to play. I vote for GA Tech, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State, even Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn, Michigan State, Clemson, Florida, Miami. Explore those to start and throw in a Texas or Texas A&M only occasionally, not every season. Asking CDC to schedule a home and home with TCU some time soon as a favor looks prudent at this time. Even though they're now good, I'm personally sick of playing Baylor for a while.

That and the Access Bowl is it for Signature win opportunities, my friends.

(01-15-2015 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 10:12 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This may be the most helpful post in the history of the many, many threads on Bailiff, thanks!

My takeaways:

-Record against 50-75 is not good and needs to improve, as some have asserted.

-BUT, if that record improves, even without any wins against 0-25, even with just a couple against 26-50, we're right up there statistically with the elite of the G5.

-I think it also strengthens the argument for "signature wins" - I was genuinely surprised at Boise's and UCF's records against 1-25. Maybe the Boise bowl game against OU and UCF's against Baylor created an impression which has colored how I perceive those programs... [Edit for clarification: I tended to think Walt and others overstate the importance of signature wins, now I think perhaps they don't...]


In the end this just confirms my gut feeling - we are annoyingly still in the gray area. I can't look at that chart and think "Fire Bailiff!" I can't look at the Marshall and especially La Tech games and feel confident we can start getting those 50-75 wins...

1. As I've posted elsewhere, I take issue with being satisfied with comparing ourselves to the other G5s; that's effectively raising the white flag in defeat. You are-- and you're going to remain-- who you compare yourselves with. Do you think UH or UCF or Boise State gives a hoot whether they're in the Top 5 of the G5s?

Not sure if you are reading my statement as more normative than I intended it, or just responding generally, but I can only comment on the stats given, so that's what I did. I'd be curious to see how we stack up against lower level P5 schools too. (I'd expect the distributions of games would be somewhat different and make the comparisons trickier.)

I get your point, but at the same time, if we want to move up to a P5, we have to get to where we are being talked about with Boise, UCF, etc., so I think it's a necessary comparison as well. I was genuinely surprised how little difference there was between them and us in the top 50 column.

(01-15-2015 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  2. You cannot simply look at record vs. Top 25 to gauge the number of signature wins. As pointed out in other threads, most national college football fans and the national media focus on the Top 10 - 15; not the Top 25. Second, a signature win is a win against a perceived perennial football power; not necessarily one against a Top 25 team. For example, if we had beaten Marshall this year, it would not have been a signature win even though Marshall finished ranked in the Top 25, since it would not have received national attention or changed the perception of Rice football. Similarly, a win against UT next year (or a win against Notre Dame or A&M this year) would be widely perceived as a signature win even though Texas is not likely to be ranked in the Top 25. Texas, ND, A&M, Michigan are all perceived as football powers even when they're in the midst of a down cycle. For us, beating Texas adds the additional benefit of in-state recruiting bragging rights.

I agree, not sure where I said otherwise.

(01-15-2015 11:17 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 09:45 AM)picrig Wrote:  Here's the rest of the data on the so-called "next up" G5 teams. Parentheses after each team are the # of teams ranked worse than 100/200 that they've played over the period.

Team/vsT25/vsT50/vsT75/vs75+

Boise St/0-2/3-3/6-3/22-1 (17)(1)
UCF/1-3/2-5/5-0/23-1 (18)(2)
ECU/0-1/2-4/1-5/23-3 (17)(4)
NIU/0-2/1-2/7-1/27-2 (19)(6)
UTSA/0-2/0-5/1-6/18-4 (12)(6)
UConn/0-0/1-7/2-8/7-11 (10)(2)
Cinci/0-1/1-6/5-2/22-2 (12)(4)
Memphis/0-2/0-5/2-4/15-9 (15)(1)
Marshall/0-0/0-4/5-3/23-5 (14)(7)
Rice/0-1/0-7/1-3/24-4 (19)(3)

Total/1-13/10-48/35-35/204-42

Unscientific and extremely quick observations. These teams basically don't beat top 20 teams. Nor do they play top 20 teams (average of 0.47/year). They really don't beat top 50 teams very much, either. If you take out Boise St. and UCF (the teams w/the best resumes on the list) and just leave the other 8, record against T50 is 5-40 (11%). So if we win our next game against the top 50, we'll be right on that average:-p. Teams are 35-35 against T51-75, which shows pretty convincingly that these teams probably fall in that range. These teams almost all dominate those ranked below 75. Memphis and UConn are the exceptions to that. But, everyone else should feel pretty confident against anyone ranked >75.

Random observation. NIU's schedule is horrendous. They tie (with Rice) for most games played against teams ranked 101-200. They are also tied (with UTSA) for most games played against teams ranked 200+ (6). That's a whopping 60% of their games played against teams ranked 100+, 14% against teams ranked 200+.

Do with the data whatever you wish:-)

Thanks for the analysis, but you're playing right into Rick's hand here. Why are we comparing ourselves to other G5s when we aspire to elevate ourselves to the next level? If our 3 - 5 year goal is to position ourselves for the next P5 realignment, we need to start comparing ourselves to the 2nd tier P5 programs; not the upper tier G5s. You are who you compare yourselves to.

BTW, since there are only around 130 FBS division programs (vs. over 300 in baseball), how can you play teams ranked 200+?

He's just presenting data.

I expressed curiosity about where we ranked in the Top tier of the G5 because:

1. It is an immediate, short term measurable 'goal' that we have to achieve on the way to anywhere else
2. It compares us to schools with whom we are playing on a level playing field, more or less.
3. We're not there (top 10 G5) yet, but we are close.

That makes it a valid measuring stick for immediate short term goals. Moreover, it seems to be an accurate proxy for Top 50 based on work presented here, and I thought that was a 'common' Board goal, or close enough.

Again this is not "playing into Rick's hands". The data above is interesting, but I did not ask for it.

I would like signature wins as well. My issue with its use as a club, particularly when one person or two insists on narrowly defining it to include "team x" but not "team y" and that a win against a Top 15 team could not count as one at all. That is incredibly subjective and claiming ownership of the definition seems self-serving.

I welcome any data, rankings etc that are not subjective and have some basis on performance. It's still discussable, but at least it's not "beating Illinois is meaningless, but beating a down OU means tearing down the goalposts".

Again comparing ourselves to the best of the G5 was never presented as an end to itself. Feel free to ignore it, but dismissing it for everyone else isn't necessary.

(01-15-2015 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 08:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:51 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 07:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 01:10 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Lastly, we both agree that "regressing to 6-6 or even another 7-5 would be just that, a regression. Then we would have a negative trend, where now we are generally positive." The only small nit I have with that statement is that word generally. It is a small sample of only 2 seasons after the 6 that came before it which are highly erratic and tend as much to the downside as to the up. As well, the quality of wins in those two seasons is highly suspect, as has been espoused by Walt and other posters, including myself. Therefore I have no confidence which way it will go this upcoming season. It's a coin-flip.

So I actually did a quick trend analysis.

Since the '09 season (6 years of data), which one could argue was on Graham for gutting the recruiting class we would have relied on that year, we have a positive, linear trend in games won. The r-squared value is 0.80, which is an insanely high r-squared value for real world data. If we go less than 9-3 next year, we hurt this argument and it becomes a less defined trend, but anything 9-3 and above keeps us moving upwards.

There is no question that, based on the number of games won, we are still on a very significant, upward trajectory. Whether we can maintain it is the question.

But that's based entirely on starting with the 2009 season? Why not start with 2007, when the DBD began? Or if you start with our winning 2010 season, which was the first with Bailiff recruits playing a major role (even if our upperclass leaders and stars were not recruited by him), you'd get a very different result. In reality, we have been on a bit of a rollercoaster ride with Bailiff as head coach, with the only consistency being our inability to beat or compete with Top 75 teams.

I explained my reason, but here you go:

2007-present: low r-squared of 0.11. But the 2008 record is an obvious statistical outlier. When it is removed, it gets bumped to a healthy 0.75.

2010-present: Still a very healthy 0.76 r-squared value.

In reality, from a record stand point, we haven't been on a roller coaster, but a pretty slow and steady climb. That '08 season was an anomaly, both statistically and actually. Bailiff was the coach that season, but we all pretty much agree that we were helmed by one of our best QBs of all time and two of our best WRs of all time.

edit: We talk one here about a recent, upward trend with regard to winning, and often point to 2012 as when that started, the first year since '08 without a losing record. But if you look at our win totals, this past year is the first year since '09 where DB and co. have won less games than the year before. Competition has changed (but if I remember, the average rating of teams played actually hasn't moved much) but if we are talking about trends, it's pretty darn clear, IMO, where we are RIGHT NOW. Next year will help define the picture even more.

OK, RiceLad, thank you for doing the two trend analysis. So it looks like OO's and my estimation of 9-3 this year as being a "good" season is pretty much spot on. Anything less will be a regression, as we both had agreed in our posts a bit above. So that will be the expectation: we will go at least 9-3 this season to be in favor of DBD keeping the Dynasty going. Less, we will be in favor of dumping him.

As I pointed out, this does not take into account quality of wins, it is just raw numbers. He can still lose to Texas, Baylor and the best 3rd team he faces in the regular season next fall and still go 9-3.

I'd really like that win against Texas, but I'll go with the above for now.

As for the quality wins trend, what would be the r-squared, seeing as how it has been mentioned that Marshall in CUSA Champ game last year was the only quality victory in the DBD? You may start in 2009 or in 2007.

Thanks. 9-3 it is. Everybody else on board with that?

GoodOwl, you post a lot of good stuff, some of which I agree with.

But the last line, coupled with your stated feelings about the coach, gives me the feeling sometimes (right or wrong) that your goal isn't the team record, but on establishing a consensus on when to demand Bailliff gets fired.

That's probably unfair, but it feels like the undercurrent of many or most of your posts. Apologize up front if that is wrong. Just letting you know how I'm reading it at least. Heck, I may be the only one.

(01-15-2015 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  But the last line, coupled with your stated feelings about the coach, gives me the feeling sometimes (right or wrong) that your goal isn't the team record, but on establishing a consensus on when to demand Bailliff gets fired.

That's probably unfair, but it feels like the undercurrent of many or most of your posts. Apologize up front if that is wrong. Just letting you know how I'm reading it at least. Heck, I may be the only one.

You're not the only one. And I say that as someone who is not even a huge fan of Bailiff.

(01-15-2015 01:41 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  OK, RiceLad, thank you for doing the two trend analysis. So it looks like OO's and my estimation of 9-3 this year as being a "good" season is pretty much spot on. Anything less will be a regression, as we both had agreed in our posts a bit above. So that will be the expectation: we will go at least 9-3 this season to be in favor of DBD keeping the Dynasty going. Less, we will be in favor of dumping him.

As I pointed out, this does not take into account quality of wins, it is just raw numbers. He can still lose to Texas, Baylor and the best 3rd team he faces in the regular season next fall and still go 9-3.

I'd really like that win against Texas, but I'll go with the above for now.

As for the quality wins trend, what would be the r-squared, seeing as how it has been mentioned that Marshall in CUSA Champ game last year was the only quality victory in the DBD? You may start in 2009 or in 2007.

Thanks. 9-3 it is. Everybody else on board with that?

GoodOwl, you post a lot of good stuff, some of which I agree with.

But the last line, coupled with your stated feelings about the coach, gives me the feeling sometimes (right or wrong) that your goal isn't the team record, but on establishing a consensus on when to demand Bailliff gets fired.

That's probably unfair, but it feels like the undercurrent of many or most of your posts. Apologize up front if that is wrong. Just letting you know how I'm reading it at least. Heck, I may be the only one.

Well, I'll first thank you for the compliment. You also post good stuff, and I try to consider it. The goal is to get Rice where we all want it to be, not to just have arguments for the sake, so I'm with you on that one.

OO has been after me on a few threads to define my expectations closely. I have stated I am still uncertain year-to-year exactly what DB is capable of based on past results and my impressions of them. RiceLad's trend analysis coupled with the comparisons to the short list of G5s we are "competing with" (Hold, on Walt, I'll get to that) along with JustAnotherAustinOwl's (need a shorter name there, bro) comment above that his impression of Boise is colored more by their past history and signature wins, making him rethink that perhaps Signature Wins ARE more important than he previously thought, have me thinking as well.

I'd still like to see the data from PicRig on Boise and UCF over their last 10 years or so.

I still think the quality of wins stinks to high heaven, and I agree with Walt on that. But the schedule is the schedule, and when I took a look at it on my post on the previous page, I found that for all the talk about Signature Wins, we don't have too many opportunities left over the next few years at present.

It is here I will take you to task on your calling me out about what a signature win is:

My opinion is that Texas next year is questionable to some as one as it will be argued: They are still down AND Rice has played them so many times in the past that we were bound to win one sometime. That's not fair, I understand, but that's what will likely happen. Therefore, elsewhere I said TWO High Quality wins like that in a season will work as far as shifting national perceptions. One will likely (and properly, in my estimation) be viewed as an anomaly and suspect considering its Rice and our history. Still great for the program, and the coach.

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anyone who would qualify a win in a bowl like HOD over a team like Illinois as all that impressive. That's how I feel, and that appears to me to be how a lot of others feel, but you are welcome to get out the trumpets and play louie, louie. I'll join you as I like music in general, in case you haven't looked at the CUSA Music Thread recently.

People's perceptions and gut feelings are their own, and don't usually change overnight, despite computer-generated data.

A victory over even a ranked G5 team will unfortunately be seen similarly. Again, i understand why you feel that is unfair, but I believe it is true. The argument will be "it's just another lower-level school with a tarted up record" and "see, that school 9the one that was beat) wasn't that good anyway, and I almost guarantee you they fall out of the Top 15 and Top 25 altogether with that one loss, but the team that beats them does not automatically move into the Top25.

My point is we are all right on these things. We need more raw victory seasons AND we need several signature wins to change the impressions and biases that those who can help make Rice a prime P5 target with their perceptions have.

Looking at the schedule the next four years, it is starkly clear that 2015 min Football really has to be the year we break through. We just have less opportunities right now going forward.

Get on the phone, JK and schedule at least 2 opportunity games a year for Rice every year going forward so we can maintain our chance at success and transformation. Here's my list, what's yours:

"We need to be sure to schedule two Opportunity games every season, and vary who we play a bit more that just Texas schools all the time. We need some new Opportunity schools to play. I vote for GA Tech, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss and Miss State, even Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Auburn, Michigan State, Clemson, Florida, Miami. Explore those to start and throw in a Texas or Texas A&M only occasionally, not every season. Asking CDC to schedule a home and home with TCU some time soon as a favor looks prudent at this time. Even though they're now good, I'm personally sick of playing Baylor for a while."

As far as DBD, I will be ecstatic if he turns into Frank Beamer here. I root for him to change all the time. But if he doesn't, if he continues to plateau at this level of only beating the worst teams and getting to a minor bowl primarily or solely on that basis, or regress, then yes, I want him gone.

He has gotten us to a level where our choices to replace him will be superior to when he was hired. For that I am thankful, but I have not always enjoyed the process he has chosen to take with it. I will always remain curious as to what kind of FB coach JK would hire. With RG, I was afraid of getting an even worse coach.

Eventually, sooner than later, he is going to have to have that breakout season, which will be good for everyone, and he hasn't yet. I agree with Owl 69 that a rolling contract with low buyouts is the most prudent step going forward. Big Bonuses for accomplishments are fine with me. I'd also like his offense to be more imaginative and entertaining and ditch the meercat, as per the many comments Owl69 has made vis a vis having an offensive philosophy and executing vs letting defense dictate seemingly most of what you do.

I'm on your "side",Rick, which I know is Rice's side. And I know Walt is on our side as well. He does have valid points to make, and I do listen to my Baker brother!

(01-15-2015 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  2. You cannot simply look at record vs. Top 25 to gauge the number of signature wins. As pointed out in other threads, most national college football fans and the national media focus on the Top 10 - 15; not the Top 25. Second, a signature win is a win against a perceived perennial football power; not necessarily one against a Top 25 team. For example, if we had beaten Marshall this year, it would not have been a signature win even though Marshall finished ranked in the Top 25, since it would not have received national attention or changed the perception of Rice football. Similarly, a win against UT next year (or a win against Notre Dame or A&M this year) would be widely perceived as a signature win even though Texas is not likely to be ranked in the Top 25. Texas, ND, A&M, Michigan are all perceived as football powers even when they're in the midst of a down cycle. For us, beating Texas adds the additional benefit of in-state recruiting bragging rights.

Well, here's a shocker - I agree with Walt completely on the definition of a signature win, and I agree with Goody that we can also define them as Opportunity wins. Whatever they are, we need them, we want them, we gotta have them. if they were easy to come by, there would be no signature or opportunity to them.

I remember not so long ago we scheduled 3-4 of these games each year. Back then they were called body bag games. I think it is another measure of progress that now we see them opportunity games.

I don't know if we want to go directly to scheduling 3-4 of those a year. We are climbing a steep staircase. Let's take it a step at a time. same thing for who we compare to. let's reach the top of the G5 step, then take the next step. Aiming at the top of G5 (for now) does not mean that is our ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to be celebrating a National championship, then doing it again and again, but I don't think we can do that without going through the intermediate steps.


And yes, we are not on opposite sides here, just in different branches of the same party, the Rice Owls Party.


IF we were to go 8-4 or even 7-5 next year, I would have to look at the way we got there more than just numbers. Same for 9-3 or better, for that matter. Who we beat or lost to, how, why, those are all important considerations in judging the season and the coach. I am sure JK would agree, and his vote matters a lot more than mine.

First of all, thanks to picrig for posting the data that (s)he did. I'd been planning to do this for a while but had never gotten the time to do so. It confirmed what I had suspected - Rice not winning games against highly-ranked opposition isn't a Bailiff problem, it's a systemic problem of schools in G5 conferences and is more reflective of the unlevel playing field of Division I FBS football than having anything to do with individual coaches (which is why criticism of Bailiff on those grounds is unwarranted). There's a few general points I should make as well culled from the original post as well as the exhausting 100+ replies at this point:

• It's great to have signature wins, especially because it gives you something to lord over your co-workers at the water cooler on Monday. In the grand scheme of things, when considering invitations to join a P5 conference, they're irrelevant. Signature wins might impress the casual fan, but the people that invite schools to join P5 conferences know those results are a one-off and not really indicative of anything. What they're looking for is a good-sized television market and a commitment to consistently competitive football. GoodOwl was good enough to point out something I've mentioned in other threads: the opportunities to get signature wins for G5 schools are far and few between. The P5 people know this, and so they'll look at a body of work rather than one-offs. After all, you can only beat who you play.
• Any comparison between Bailiff and Rhodes right now is pointless. Rhodes hasn't even coached a full season, and right now his team is no better than Braun's last two. When Rhodes has won a C-USA championship and has gone to four post-season tournaments in eight seasons, then we'll have a better basis for comparison. As an aside, some have been asserting that Rhodes's team plays exciting basketball; perhaps it's just me, but I don't find throwing up a ton of bricks and making numerous turnovers to be terribly exciting, but to each their own....
• The dumb poker analogies seem to have stopped, so let's keep it that way, unless you consider poker to be a game in which the players don't muck their hands after each round but get to keep individual cards four hands out of five; replace the cards in their hands by all players simultaneously rummaging through the deck; and have the cards in their hands randomly change value between hands and sometimes entirely disappear.
• Getting back to the subject line for this thread, perspective matters. Incrementalism to the insect is transformation to the tortoise.
  

Now that Massey has done his final 2014 season ratings update, it's possible to provide context for the assertion that the Owls took a step backwards this season. In terms of overall rating, they didn't. Rice ended the 2014 season with a 53.60 power rating, its highest since 1996. The reason why Rice's record declined was because it also played its toughest schedule since entering C-USA. Here's how the Owls have done since 2005; in this table I note Rice's final power rating, the mean rating of opposition, and a breakdown of number of opponents by quartile:


So this past season the record dropped but the quality of opponent increased, which is how one can have a higher power rating and worse record. The overall trend is upward, which is the right direction, and I don't see any a priori reason to presume it won't continue in that direction.

I'm actually surprised that our 4-8 team in 2011 is ranked pretty much even with out 7-6 2006 team.

I guess it goes to show what playing a easier/tougher schedule and having a few lucky/unlucky bounces to can do for you.

I'm also surprised that our Power Rating went down from 2012 to 2013, even though our opponent's average went up, and our win total increased by 3.

Thanks for that, Jonathan, but I'm scratching my head how the quality of opponents improved this year, given all 8 of our wins were against teams ranked outside the Top 80, and over half were against some of the very worst in the FBS division. The "quality of opponent" is skewed by Marshall being a Top 25 team this year (though I'm not convinced they were a better team than last year) and LaTech rebounding from their disastrous 2013 season.

As for your comment about signature wins, let's just agree to disagree, since I'm obviously not going to convince you otherwise. In isolation, I'll agree that signature wins do not get you invited into a P5 conference, but signature wins most definitely bring positive attention to the football program and University, and go a long way towards changing perceptions nationally-- and not just with "casual fans", but with ALL college football fans and the national media.

It may be true that most other G5 programs have similar W - L records against the Top 25/50, but a number of G5 have MUCH better records against the Top 51 - 75, and many have played the Top 50 MUCH more competitively than we have (or, more to the point, haven't).

Finally, I think the Bailiff - Rhoades comparison is appropriate. Of course, you can't make comparisons based on W - L record, but you most certainly can based on the intangibles of personality, public statements, exciting brand of play, etc.

Anyone have TCUs numbers? They are the program we want to emulate more than anyone else in terms of wins and climbing the ladder.

(01-15-2015 05:01 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  First of all, thanks to picrig for posting the data that (s)he did. I'd been planning to do this for a while but had never gotten the time to do so. It confirmed what I had suspected - Rice not winning games against highly-ranked opposition isn't a Bailiff problem, it's a systemic problem of schools in G5 conferences and is more reflective of the unlevel playing field of Division I FBS football than having anything to do with individual coaches (which is why criticism of Bailiff on those grounds is unwarranted). There's a few general points I should make as well culled from the original post as well as the exhausting 100+ replies at this point:

• It's great to have signature wins, especially because it gives you something to lord over your co-workers at the water cooler on Monday. In the grand scheme of things, when considering invitations to join a P5 conference, they're irrelevant. Signature wins might impress the casual fan, but the people that invite schools to join P5 conferences know those results are a one-off and not really indicative of anything. What they're looking for is a good-sized television market and a commitment to consistently competitive football. GoodOwl was good enough to point out something I've mentioned in other threads: the opportunities to get signature wins for G5 schools are far and few between. The P5 people know this, and so they'll look at a body of work rather than one-offs. After all, you can only beat who you play.
• Any comparison between Bailiff and Rhodes right now is pointless. Rhodes hasn't even coached a full season, and right now his team is no better than Braun's last two. When Rhodes has won a C-USA championship and has gone to four post-season tournaments in eight seasons, then we'll have a better basis for comparison. As an aside, some have been asserting that Rhodes's team plays exciting basketball; perhaps it's just me, but I don't find throwing up a ton of bricks and making numerous turnovers to be terribly exciting, but to each their own....
• The dumb poker analogies seem to have stopped, so let's keep it that way, unless you consider poker to be a game in which the players don't muck their hands after each round but get to keep individual cards four hands out of five; replace the cards in their hands by all players simultaneously rummaging through the deck; and have the cards in their hands randomly change value between hands and sometimes entirely disappear.
• Getting back to the subject line for this thread, perspective matters. Incrementalism to the insect is transformation to the tortoise.
  

Now that Massey has done his final 2014 season ratings update, it's possible to provide context for the assertion that the Owls took a step backwards this season. In terms of overall rating, they didn't. Rice ended the 2014 season with a 53.60 power rating, its highest since 1996. The reason why Rice's record declined was because it also played its toughest schedule since entering C-USA. Here's how the Owls have done since 2005; in this table I note Rice's final power rating, the mean rating of opposition, and a breakdown of number of opponents by quartile:

Code:

Year, Record, Power Rating, Opponents' Power Rating, Number of 1st/2nd/3rd/4th Quartile Opponents:
2005 1-10 33.55 53.10 2/2/5/2
2006 7-6  37.12 41.78 2/2/4/5
2007 3-9  26.47 35.96 2/0/1/9
2008 10-3 53.18 44.94 1/3/2/7
2009 2-10 21.60 39.08 1/4/2/5
2010 4-8  26.90 35.97 0/2/4/6
2011 4-8  37.07 46.24 4/2/2/4
2012 7-6  45.19 38.41 0/3/1/9
2013 10-4 45.17 40.25 1/2/3/8
2014 8-5  53.60 48.08 2/2/1/8

So this past season the record dropped but the quality of opponent increased, which is how one can have a higher power rating and worse record. The overall trend is upward, which is the right direction, and I don't see any a priori reason to presume it won't continue in that direction.

Well done.

(01-15-2015 06:06 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Anyone have TCUs numbers? They are the program we want to emulate more than anyone else in terms of wins and climbing the ladder.

You have to start way back in 1996 (first year in WAC16) to get the real flavor of where they were (start of a 4-year period when we beat them every year). Note LT's senior year (2000), the brief drop when Patterson took over and the subsequent years (generally upward, but as I recall with a hitch or two along the way (slight drop in record on occasion, upset loss to SMU)

It would be interesting