I've gone back and forth on this in my mind, but the goals for Rice in this game seem pretty straightforward:

A solid, convincing win that is never in doubt and puts Nicholls State fears to rest.

Limiting Wagner's scoring is important. The last thing we would probably want or need is a close game where the outcome is in any real doubt, or any egregious mistakes that would point to questioning lack of organization/preparation. Score differential would ideally be enough to account for the difference in level of the programs (FCS vs FBS) and not raise any serious questions, but need not be a ridiculous blowout pulling out all the stops, because that probably really doesn't help us much in Game #2 against Texas. That appears to be where the real season begins and really where this coach's opportunity to take a step up lies for the season in many respects. If ever there was a "pre-season" game, this one fits that description. But it's still very much a must-win contest.

The only contrarian view I can think of is to perform poorly against Wagner in order to somehow "lure" Texas into believing we're not very good, and thus sneak up on them to steal a win in the second game. (Of course, if this is what happens, then we would not know if it was real or a clever ploy until after the Texas game is played.) I would think that's just way too risky a chance to take, but I can see a case being made for that type of scenario if subterfuge is seen as our main weapon to try to get a win instead of solid football play.

One would hope that second and third stringers get plenty of valuable in-game experience while still running somewhat more than a totally generic offense and defense, (including backup QB should DJ happen to get hurt again sometime this season) and the staff can evaluate the pecking order and depth more than we have in some previous season openers. This would be a good time to show all the depth of the previous decade of recruiting, which is repeatedly touted as this staff's strongest area, is finally paying off, instead of having to take yet another step back.

We'll definitely have to keep some surprises under wraps for Texas in the second game, but hopefully these will be well-practiced beforehand to iron out the kinks.

Waiting until mid-season to get things running on all cylinders removes much of the potential of this season, barring a Conference Championship and Bowl win against a P5, which won't be very easy either with the likes of Marshall, WKU, and LaTech to contend with.

The Wagner game will be a balancing act, but even if game is well in hand, there are still constructive things team and staff would benefit from doing to prepare for the rest of the season's slate. I wouldn't think we show Texas too much, but should place strong focus on an error-free game that is well-executed top to bottom from all who play, not just the starters. Getting a handle on where we are in the kicking and special teams game would be helpful as well.

While we've had plenty of building years over the last decade, this season would be a good opportunity to show Rice can take a clear step up above where it has been before, and gain some national respect, as opposed to only regional or conference acknowledgment as one of the top-half C-USA teams.

Should we get by this first step, we would at the very minimum want to put the Fear of God in Texas, coming either tantalizingly close and having the outcome in doubt until the very, very end, or preferably, winning. Just mailing it in and trying not to get hurt does little for the program's progress at this point. We could use some TCU-like progress in stepping up the program at this point. Either way, we should hope to give Baylor some pause with how we play Texas, and not take us as a gimme, or play that game like one. It would appear to be our last opportunity this season to make any significant impression nationally, barring the above-mentioned Conference Championship and P5 Bowl win.

While the Texas game will likely go a long way towards defining what this season could be one way or the other, we cannot easily afford slip-ups against perceived lesser teams, either Wagner or the many currently lesser-regarded teams in CUSA we are scheduled to play this year after the big games are over. In order to show progress not plateau, I hope the team and staff take the opportunity to do much more with this years' schedule than just a repeat of last season's record give or take a game.

It has finally been mentioned that this staff thinks "it's time for us to be in the Top 25 rankings," and "we want to finish in the Top 25." While it is nice to finally actually hear those words from this coach after a decade, being a Top 25 team means going far beyond anywhere this staff has been, and it means getting unquestionable and unambiguous national notice (i.e. win(s)) in the very few early opportunities we have coupled with convincing and solid, well-executed performances throughout the season in every C-USA game. We can not continue to just do pretty much what we have done for the past decade and expect to get there. I'm rooting for it to happen.

Good luck, may the Force be with you, and Go Owls in 2015!

Where the talent gap is greatest (I would imagine) between us and Wagner is similar to that between us and most P5 programs-- in the lines. Consequently, given we want to limit our playbook so as not give UT much to scout and prepare for, I fully expect us to pound the ball on the ground over and over and over again, with passing limited to 3rd and long situations. Also, ideally, we'd limit the use of the option, and save that and any other unique formation (e.g., loaded backfield, Bob at QB) for the UT game.

At this point I just want a win over Wagner that's not a nail-biter, and everybody healthy going into the UT game the following week.....

i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.

if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.

And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.

So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.

yeah, sure.

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.

if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.

And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.

So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.

yeah, sure.

??? Why in the world would the starters need more than one half worth of game reps prior to the UT game? Let's not forget they would have been practicing with the first team for the prior month.

(07-23-2015 02:29 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  At this point I just want a win over Wagner that's not a nail-biter, and everybody healthy going into the UT game the following week.....

I agree. Given a comfortable lead by half, I would prefer to not see DJ at the helms. This would be a great opportunity to get quality game experience for German and Stehling. I know that it is 2015, but QB is my biggest concern for 2016. And more to the point, the only reason we had a semi QB controversy in 2013 was because we knew that DJ had quality potential due to his Armed Forces bowl game experience.

(07-23-2015 02:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.

if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.

And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.

So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.

yeah, sure.

??? Why in the world would the starters need more than one half worth of game reps prior to the UT game? Let's not forget they would have been practicing with the first team for the prior month.

would more reps better prepare them, or do we expect them to plateau in the second quarter?

Talking about Wagner in July? Just go out and have fun and let Driphus do his thing. Our weather will destroy them :).

(07-23-2015 03:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.

if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.

And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.

So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.

yeah, sure.

??? Why in the world would the starters need more than one half worth of game reps prior to the UT game? Let's not forget they would have been practicing with the first team for the prior month.

would more reps better prepare them, or do we expect them to plateau in the second quarter?

Charlie Strong isn't going to be lulled into thinking anything. UT will be prepared for us no matter what happens, so we should do what we need to do and stay healthy and that's it.

(07-23-2015 11:11 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Charlie Strong isn't going to be lulled into thinking anything. UT will be prepared for us no matter what happens, so we should do what we need to do and stay healthy and that's it.

On the button.

Now if we could only agree on what we need to do.

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.
if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.
And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.
So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.
yeah, sure.

Come out strong, get way ahead, and rest the starters. If they don't have enough reps from practice, 20 more snaps isn't going to get it done. And the more people we can get meaningful PT, the better.

I'm much more worried about coming out flat and having another Nicholls debacle than I am about figuring out playing time if we blow them away.

Last season, Wagner finished 4th nationally in FCS in time of possession (33:02) and had zero turnovers in their final three games.

Many of these same comments were being made before last year's ODU game.

(07-24-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.
if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.
And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.
So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.
yeah, sure.

Come out strong, get way ahead, and rest the starters. If they don't have enough reps from practice, 20 more snaps isn't going to get it done. And the more people we can get meaningful PT, the better.

I'm much more worried about coming out flat and having another Nicholls debacle than I am about figuring out playing time if we blow them away.

Last things first - me too. To quote the old cliché, that's why the games are played. Lightning does often strike again in the same place, pun intended.

But if the game goes as most observers think it should, at some point Rice will have a big enough lead that to be sportsmanlike, or for the purpose of getting playing time for the reserves, substitutions could be made liberally. Should they?

A lot of people here are putting all of our 2015 eggs in one basket, the one labeled UT. A loss there will end the season for some, as Baylor is, to them, a foregone conclusion and the other 10 games are meaningless contests against crap opponents. What do we want? A signature win. When do we want it? NOW!!! (well, September 12, anyway).

Game reps are much different than practice reps. So maybe we should get as many as possible before we play the season make or break game. Just a thought, for debate. My personal preference is that Bailiff be his usual sportsmanlike self, pull the starters, and let the back ups get some time. But I think it is a legitimate question if that is the best way to prepare the team for the make or break game the next week.

(07-24-2015 06:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-23-2015 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i see a catch-22 situation regarding PT. I f we get confortably ajead, amd sit a lot of starters, they are missing valuable reps that could help them prepare for UT. The second and third stringers would be getting PT that may help them down the road, but likely will not be of much use against UT and Baylor if their participation is limited in those games.
if we get comfortably ahead and leave in the starters, RUTS, just the opposite happens.
And the worst case scerario is not to ever get comfortably ahead.
So, until the game is being played, I will opt to hope for for a comfortable win with just the right amount of PT for every player AND a minimum of comlaints and faultfinding from the Parliament.
yeah, sure.

Come out strong, get way ahead, and rest the starters. If they don't have enough reps from practice, 20 more snaps isn't going to get it done. And the more people we can get meaningful PT, the better.

I'm much more worried about coming out flat and having another Nicholls debacle than I am about figuring out playing time if we blow them away.

+1

OO, please. That's not what was said, and you know it.

It is hard to look at this season's schedule in the context of what has and has not been done here at Rice in football in the past decade and not circle the UT game as a very important one, if not the most important this season. (yes, the next game you play is the most impt.....etc...but really.)

Can we have still have a good year if we lose to UT again? Yes, depending on the the game-play in and final score of the loss and how we handle the rest of the season.

If we beat UT will that turn everything around and make the rest irrelevant? Hardly. It would only be a small step in the long climb back, but a big one for Rice and Coach Bailiff.

If we lose to UT, it is probably highly unlikely we beat Baylor (although anything is possible), so our opportunity games of national importance are gone for the year with those two for most non-Rice college football observers. (We'll still care very muich, but most nationally won't.)

From most pre-season rankings of teams this season, it is clear Rice is currently thought of as in the upper half of CUSA, though not quite CUSA Conference Champion material. Also, most evaluators, who have much more college football knowledge than I do, appear to think most of our conference opponents on our schedule are among the very worst in college football, period. While we have to do a little more than just show up on the field, most of those games are W's-- to the tune of 7 or 8 nearly-automatic wins, which gets us to a lesser bowl automatically.

To say it is hard for Rice to go to a bowl game nowadays is being disingenuous at best. The only thing stopping Rice from going bowling every year these days is Rice. In the past, that was hardly the case. The days of struggling to get to any bowl game, a la what happened to very good Rice teams under Hatfield are long gone because there's just way too many bowl games now, and about two-thirds of teams go. So going to any bowl is no longer the real accomplishment or "good season stamp" it used to be.

Now, going to a nationally meaningful bowl game--that is still quite hard, especially for CUSA teams. This is because all the games but one (if I am correct) are against other G5s.

The real opportunities against P5 schools have been all but removed particularly for CUSA schools like Rice. The two exceptions, I believe, are Heart of Dallas Bowl vs a mid-to-lower-level BiG team, and the Access Bowl. At this point, getting in one of those two Bowl games has to be the top goal of this staff, if Rice is indeed to actually have a chance to be ranked nationally in the Top 25 as the coach has said. It is hard (but perhaps not completely impossible) to see Rice being ranked otherwise.

Rice can no longer afford an ODU or Nicholls type loss anymore to be consistent with the Top25 goal. One of those would appear enough to torpedo a ranking in the Top25.

Going to a fourth straight bowl game is all but assured by suiting up this season. That is not as much an accomplishment with the bowl inflation and G5 vs G5 bowl match-ups CUSA has cornered itself into, though it is still historic for Rice in nominal terms.

Which brings to mind the thought that the main reason Rice would ever want to make a lateral move for football in terms of G5 conference is to improve the bowl game match-up opportunities in football, at the expense of closer conference opponents and home attendance most likely. It is certainly an imperfect situation we are in. I still like the "TCU solution" of running the table several years in a row, and becoming unable to be ignored by the P5s but until it happens for Rice, I am reluctant to hold my breath. Even Frank Beamer at Va Tech eventually ran the table several times in a row, and analysis in other threads shows it is starting to get past time for Rice to step it up to that level if that is truly the most apt comparison.

Beating UT on the road this year is better for Rice than not beating them or only coming close. I root for Rice beating UT on the road, and then giving Baylor something to think about when they play us.

I don't know how much better our starters can get against Wagner. They are a step down from CUSA competition. Our backups, on the other hand, need experience and playing time. They need repetitions. We also don't want any first teamers getting injured late in a game that we've already easily won. I'm sure Bailiff will play many 2nd and 3rd stringers, and he needs to. Develop depth that will be prepared to help the team later in the season against Louisiana Tech and UTEP.

(07-24-2015 09:58 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  OO, please. That's not what was said, and you know it.

Starting off by calling me a liar. Interesting approach.

It is hard to look at this season's schedule in the context of what has and has not been done here at Rice in football in the past decade and not circle the UT game as a very important one, if not the most important this season. (yes, the next game you play is the most impt.....etc...but really.)

sure

Can we have still have a good year if we lose to UT again? Yes, depending on the the game-play in and final score of the loss and how we handle the rest of the season.

so you think 10-2 or 9-3 will still be considered a good season? Maybe by you and me, but I think not in some quarters. just more of the same, the so called 'plateau'

If we beat UT will that turn everything around and make the rest irrelevant? Hardly. It would only be a small step in the long climb back, but a big one for Rice and Coach Bailiff.

yep. I think that if why so many people are putting so much emphasis in what they see as a rare opportunity

If we lose to UT, it is probably highly unlikely we beat Baylor (although anything is possible), so our opportunity games of national importance are gone for the year with those two for most non-Rice college football observers. (We'll still care very muich, but most nationally won't.)
of course. Even if we beat UT, it is so.

From most pre-season rankings of teams this season, it is clear Rice is currently thought of as in the upper half of CUSA, though not quite CUSA Conference Champion material. Also, most evaluators, who have much more college football knowledge than I do, appear to think most of our conference opponents on our schedule are among the very worst in college football, period. While we have to do a little more than just show up on the field, most of those games are W's-- to the tune of 7 or 8 nearly-automatic wins, which gets us to a lesser bowl automatically.

Way too many automatics in that statement. Didn't we all just say that Wagner worries us in a Nichols State type of way, and now we are supposed to assume 7 or 8 more?

To say it is hard for Rice to go to a bowl game nowadays is being disingenuous at best. The only thing stopping Rice from going bowling every year these days is Rice. In the past, that was hardly the case. The days of struggling to get to any bowl game, a la what happened to very good Rice teams under Hatfield are long gone because there's just way too many bowl games now, and about two-thirds of teams go. So going to any bowl is no longer the real accomplishment or "good season stamp" it used to be.

Nobody is saying it is hard. agree on the rest

Now, going to a nationally meaningful bowl game--that is still quite hard, especially for CUSA teams. This is because all the games but one (if I am correct) are against other G5s.

yep

The real opportunities against P5 schools have been all but removed particularly for CUSA schools like Rice. The two exceptions, I believe, are Heart of Dallas Bowl vs a mid-to-lower-level BiG team, and the Access Bowl. At this point, getting in one of those two Bowl games has to be the top goal of this staff, if Rice is indeed to actually have a chance to be ranked nationally in the Top 25 as the coach has said. It is hard (but perhaps not completely impossible) to see Rice being ranked otherwise.

no disagreement there

Rice can no longer afford an ODU or Nicholls type loss anymore to be consistent with the Top25 goal. One of those would appear enough to torpedo a ranking in the Top25.

no disagreement there

Going to a fourth straight bowl game is all but assured by suiting up this season. That is not as much an accomplishment with the bowl inflation and G5 vs G5 bowl match-ups CUSA has cornered itself into, though it is still historic for Rice in nominal terms.

no disagreement there

Which brings to mind the thought that the main reason Rice would ever want to make a lateral move for football in terms of G5 conference is to improve the bowl game match-up opportunities in football, at the expense of closer conference opponents and home attendance most likely. It is certainly an imperfect situation we are in. I still like the "TCU solution" of running the table several years in a row, and becoming unable to be ignored by the P5s but until it happens for Rice, I am reluctant to hold my breath. Even Frank Beamer at Va Tech eventually ran the table several times in a row, and analysis in other threads shows it is starting to get past time for Rice to step it up to that level if that is truly the most apt comparison.

I thought running the table was the goal every year for every team. never thought of it as a "model", TCU, or Ohio State or otherwise. But yeah, not much time left to get 'er done. so what is your point here?

Beating UT on the road this year is better for Rice than not beating them or only coming close. I root for Rice beating UT on the road, and then giving Baylor something to think about when they play us.

Duh. Me too. Or winning both. I'm tired of giving other teams something to think about as a goal.

I had to take your long post piecemeal, too big to address in toto. But now that I am done, I wonder, what does all this have to do with whether or not bailiff should leave the starters in a little longer in the case of an easy win? You emphasize the Texas game, which is what I have been saying a lot of parliamentarians have been doing, and once again, I don't see how giving more playing time to reserves will help us win THAT game, since I expect the starters to be in all or most of THAT game, and the Baylor game too. Playing the reserves has more importance for the games later in the season, IMO, than for the two you want to win the most.

In any case, I stated my personal preference for bailiff to play the reserves, both for sportsmanship and the good of the overall program, but given the emphasis put on the UT & BU games, maybe not the best way to get to the top25.

(07-24-2015 08:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Last things first - me too. To quote the old cliché, that's why the games are played. Lightning does often strike again in the same place, pun intended.
But if the game goes as most observers think it should, at some point Rice will have a big enough lead that to be sportsmanlike, or for the purpose of getting playing time for the reserves, substitutions could be made liberally. Should they?
A lot of people here are putting all of our 2015 eggs in one basket, the one labeled UT. A loss there will end the season for some, as Baylor is, to them, a foregone conclusion and the other 10 games are meaningless contests against crap opponents. What do we want? A signature win. When do we want it? NOW!!! (well, September 12, anyway).
Game reps are much different than practice reps. So maybe we should get as many as possible before we play the season make or break game. Just a thought, for debate. My personal preference is that Bailiff be his usual sportsmanlike self, pull the starters, and let the back ups get some time. But I think it is a legitimate question if that is the best way to prepare the team for the make or break game the next week.

To me the season is more important than any one game. Given a choice, I'd rather lose to UT and Baylor, win all the rest, and finish 12-2 that beat UT and Baylor, stumble three times and miss out on the conference championship game, and finish 9-3 (plus bowl, win or lose). And the bast way to win 12 or 13 or 14 is to keep the starters healthy and get the reserves up to speed. So rest them if it gets out of hand. But first, make damn sure it gets out of hand, and in a good way.

The more pressing issue to me is do we keep starters in if things go badly against Texas or Baylor and we find ourselves down 30. No point in getting a starter hurt in a game you can't win.

Winning big or losing big, get the starters out and get the backups some PT.

(07-24-2015 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To me the season is more important than any one game. Given a choice, I'd rather lose to UT and Baylor, win all the rest, and finish 12-2 that beat UT and Baylor, stumble three times and miss out on the conference championship game, and finish 9-3 (plus bowl, win or lose).

I just don't see this happening. If we are good enough to beat a UT or Baylor, we will likely be good enough to beat C-USA. If we lose to an ODU, we likely are already 0-2 against the two P5 teams.