(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with the last statement. And for the records, I don't think we have a prayer on the road vs. Baylor this year; not with their high-powered passing attack and our secondary. You're statement would insinuate that true upsets rarely if ever happen....and we all know that's not the case. There is always going to be a talent gap between Rice and the national powers. Consequently, to pull off the occassional upset one needs aggressive and imaginative play calling on both sides of the ball. Bailiff has yet to show this trait or ability.

(07-27-2015 05:14 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:08 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Fresno St was favored in the Hawaii Bowl. SMU was favored in 2012. There've been others.

??? Every single ranking service had Fresno State 6 - 15 positions worse than us heading into the Hawaii Bowl. They were a .500 team in a lousy conference. And the Purdue win was only an upset because we were playing a bottom-feeding P5 team. No one outside of Rice and Purdue supporters noticed or cared about the game. Ditto the SMU game.

The only real upset in the 9-year David Bailiff era was the home championship game against Marshall in miserable weather. In fact, I believe that was the only time in the 9 years we were not blown out by a Top 65 ranked team.

I'm referring to the betting lines when I say "favored." That's the commonly understood definition. OldOwl asked about upsets. He didn't provide qualifications or definition.

(07-26-2015 08:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In a 12-2 season, designating a game as a W means another must be designated as a L. It is zero-sum if we are to finish exactly 12 and 2. If I am to pick two to lose, out of 12 regular season games, a CC, and a bowl, I pick BU for one. I can't decide on the other. Anybody have two that make the ideal loss list in a 12-2 season? Anybody picking LTU and the bowl, or what?

I'd say beat UT (or Baylor), lose to WKU but then beat them on the road in the CC game to avenge the loss and then win the HOD bowl.

But honestly, I would probably find 10-4 with a conference championship and a bowl win more satisfying than 12-2 with the losses being the last two games of the season.

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Said the 2009 Houston Cougars who upset Oklahoma State on the road, beat Texas Tech, setting off waves of excitement as they got to #12 in the polls...

Then promptly got crushed at UTEP (4-8 on the year) the next week...
Then later lost at eventualy 8-5 UCF after having climbed back to #13 in the polls.

That said, that run is what gave Houston some level of profile. Which they were able to follow up on some after a struggle in 2010 (in large part due to Keenum's season ending injury) with a dynamite 2011 (undefeated until losing the CUSA title game at home, though it took 6 weeks before they were ranked).

So yes, even if able to beat Texas and/or Baylor, it's quite possible (even in CUSA 3.0) to lose a game you shouldn't. That's college football in a nutshell. We all know about Stanford defeating then #2 Southern Cal in the largest betting margin upset known, but only finishes 4-8 and loses 5 more games the rest of the way, all against teams not in the top 25. There are lots of examples out there.

(07-27-2015 07:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 05:14 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 12:08 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Fresno St was favored in the Hawaii Bowl. SMU was favored in 2012. There've been others.

??? Every single ranking service had Fresno State 6 - 15 positions worse than us heading into the Hawaii Bowl. They were a .500 team in a lousy conference. And the Purdue win was only an upset because we were playing a bottom-feeding P5 team. No one outside of Rice and Purdue supporters noticed or cared about the game. Ditto the SMU game.

The only real upset in the 9-year David Bailiff era was the home championship game against Marshall in miserable weather. In fact, I believe that was the only time in the 9 years we were not blown out by a Top 65 ranked team.

I'm referring to the betting lines when I say "favored." That's the commonly understood definition. OldOwl asked about upsets. He didn't provide qualifications or definition.

Doesn't Phil Steele carry an ATS record in his analyses?

edit: a quick search gives us this,

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...marsh-rice

showing a 9-4 record last year ATS.

Only the Fresno game could be called an upset, though, in the sense of beating a favored team (in that case, a PK).

It does show, to me, that the combination of public perception and a small fan base does give us a lot of betting opportunities.

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

(07-27-2015 10:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

??? Yeah, because the one CUSA championship we won brought us so much national attention and changed the perception of the program. NOT.

(07-27-2015 11:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

??? Yeah, because the one CUSA championship we won brought us so much national attention and changed the perception of the program. NOT.

One anything won't be a panacea for the image. it is repeating things, whether conference championships, upsets, or signature wins, that upgrades the image.

But we should ALWAYS be looking for upsets, and championships, and bowl wins. Every game, every season.

(07-27-2015 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One anything won't be a panacea for the image. it is repeating things, whether conference championships, upsets, or signature wins, that upgrades the image.

But we should ALWAYS be looking for upsets, and championships, and bowl wins. Every game, every season.

I'm going to be optimistic that Optimistic's sensible comment will stop this endless debate.



Oh, who am I kidding, I'm very pessimistic it will have any effect.

(07-27-2015 05:20 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with the last statement. And for the records, I don't think we have a prayer on the road vs. Baylor this year; not with their high-powered passing attack and our secondary. You're statement would insinuate that true upsets rarely if ever happen....and we all know that's not the case. There is always going to be a talent gap between Rice and the national powers. Consequently, to pull off the occassional upset one needs aggressive and imaginative play calling on both sides of the ball. Bailiff has yet to show this trait or ability.

Not sure that I agree. Is he as aggressive as Todd Graham, probably not. Is he as innovative as Chad Morris? Generally no. Sure he is generally conservative but that doesn't mean that he is yet to show aggressive or imaginative play calling.

(07-27-2015 11:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 01:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  But not finishing with a CUSAtitle would negate that spectacular start. I'd take a CUSA title over two big upsets and a lackluster finish.

And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

??? Yeah, because the one CUSA championship we won brought us so much national attention and changed the perception of the program. NOT.

A CUSA championship gets us in the Heart of Dallas Bowl against someone like Texas Tech or Kansas State. A championship and win against either one of those two gets us plenty of attention.

(07-27-2015 01:33 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 11:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 10:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(07-27-2015 03:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-26-2015 02:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And winning the CUSA title, while getting blown out by UT and Baylor, does absolutely nothing to change our national profile and perception. I'm with Antarious on this one-- I'll take the two big, early upsets and signature wins. I think it does more for the program at this stage. Having said that, it's not an either or situation, for if we're good enough to beat both UT and, especially, Baylor, on the road, there is no way, barring major injury woes, we're going to lose in CUSA play (particularly when we have our two toughest opponents-- WKU and LaTech-- at home).

Yes way. Two words. Nicholls State.

I want us to get to the point where we put out a consistent effort every week and eliminate the Nicholls and ODU situations where all to often we simply forget to show up. When TCU and Boise were getting all those "signature" wins, they were also going pretty much undefeated against the rest of their schedule. Beating ND or aTm last year would have been an upset. If we had come home and lost to ODU, followed by the LT debacle, any hope of that being a "signature" win would have vanished. And quite frankly, until we are consistently able to run the table in CUSA, we aren't good enough to beat BU or TU unless they are having a really down year (probably down more than UT this year).

The reason we don't have a "signature" win under Bailiff is very simple--we are not good enough. Will we ever be good enough again? Who knows? If yes, will that happen under Bailiff? Who knows?

Your statement actually supports this. You say if we beat TU or especially BU on the road, there is no way we lose a CUSA game. I am saying that we need to get to the point where there is no way we lose a CUSA game before we can beat TU or especially BU on the road. Two sides of the same coin.

We have to get to where we are mortal locks to win the other 12 before we can expect to win the 2.

That's right. We shouldn't be looking for major upsets until we can regularly beat CUSA competition. We need another championship more than anything right now.

??? Yeah, because the one CUSA championship we won brought us so much national attention and changed the perception of the program. NOT.

A CUSA championship gets us in the Heart of Dallas Bowl against someone like Texas Tech or Kansas State. A championship and win against either one of those two gets us plenty of attention.

The Heart of Dallas bowl was LaTech vs 6-6 (3-5 conference) Illinois and will be against 0.500 P5 teams, which does not attract the kind of attention Walt is talking about. Unless you're the G5 qualifier, it's the best the conference has to offer.

OO is right. A big win here or there will not substantially change perceptions. The public has a short memory, and will forget by next season. A G5 team needs to become a perennial power to even begin to change perception long-term. Boise St's story is the archetype of this process. Upset, by definition, implies a team that hasn't really arrived - an upset is what it is and if the win is an upset, then the underdog implication remains.

(07-27-2015 02:02 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  OO is right. A big win here or there will not substantially change perceptions. The public has a short memory, and will forget by next season. A G5 team needs to become a perennial power to even begin to change perception long-term. Boise St's story is the archetype of this process. Upset, by definition, implies a team that hasn't really arrived - an upset is what it is and if the win is an upset, then the underdog implication remains.

Good grief. Upsets of perennial powers garner national attention at the time they occur-- always! No, it doesn't mean you've arrived, and you do have to back it up with repeat performances....but you need the upsets for anyone to care or take notice.

I tend to not care so much about how others perceive my team. I just want to win and enjoy it for myself and among the rest of the Rice community. I know about Rice's history and it's struggles. Wins are satisfying because of it. That's all that matters to me.

(07-27-2015 02:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I tend to not care so much about how others perceive my team. I just want to win and enjoy it for myself and among the rest of the Rice community. I know about Rice's history and it's struggles. Wins are satisfying because of it. That's all that matters to me.

That's you. Some of the rest of us would like to improve our current position and conference affiliation, and we can only do that with improved national prominence.

Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

And WKU who is picked in some places to have an Access Bowl season if they don't trip up.

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

Very weak.

As a national draw, the Army home game is the most compelling.

Western K and LaTech are in the middle, followed by Wagner (FCS) and Charlotte (first year FBS, sounds familiar?).

(07-27-2015 03:13 PM)talon owl Wrote:  Gosh our home schedule is weak this year. Most compelling is La Tech?

I actually like the home schedule. We play teams we should beat on the road (within conference), and the ones that might be tougher are at home. Sets us up nicely, IMO