Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
Author Message
ranfin Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 923
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 11:55 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  This does not make sense. I don't believe it. Why would you even have such a petition ? You have any actual evidence of such a petition? Some of the players I talked to said preparation before some games were terrible. Sounds like fake news .
(08-28-2017 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 11:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 10:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the antidote for the antiBailiff crowd would be to get 250 or so players to sign a petition asking for him to be fired.

"If this [Board] is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor [Bailiff]'s leadership."


I am still stunned by the 250 number. If we go back 50 years, and average 25 recruits a year, that is 1250 former players, more or less. Twenty percent signed this petition!

I don't see why it would matter if 1250 players signed a petition. He was still a less than mediocre coach.
08-28-2017 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiOwl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 961
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 09:15 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Owls going to TCU. https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...9746359296
Thank God it's for use of a practice field, not to play them
08-28-2017 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ourland Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,561
Joined: Apr 2017
Reputation: 304
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location: Galveston
Post: #43
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 06:13 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I decided not to stay up for the game, but woke up about 5:30am (GMT) and thought the game might be over. Behind 45-0 the game was over, but not quite finished.

Whatever happens in the game I always look at the first couple of drives of the Rice offense each half to assess a team's preparation.

First Quarter
First drive: 3 plays, -6 yards (including three penalties - two false starts and a delay of game).
Second drive: 3 plays, 3 yards

Half time score - Stanford 38, Rice 0

After half-time adjustments...
First drive: 5 plays and 22 yards (including runs of 8 and 17 and then...)
Second drive: 3 plays, 0 yards

Final score - Stanford 62, Rice 7

Even for a 'preseason' game this is just unconscionable and completely unacceptable.

Arguably the worst preparation I have ever witnessed in the past fifty years.

I'm also very disappointed, but remember that our players are as good as their 3rd teamres. They're returning 16 starters and will probably win the PAC12. That is an exceptionally good team. I'll be much, much more upset if we don't look good against UTEP.
08-28-2017 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,536
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #44
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 12:17 PM)ranfin Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:55 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  This does not make sense. I don't believe it. Why would you even have such a petition ? You have any actual evidence of such a petition? Some of the players I talked to said preparation before some games were terrible. Sounds like fake news .
(08-28-2017 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 11:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 10:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the antidote for the antiBailiff crowd would be to get 250 or so players to sign a petition asking for him to be fired.

"If this [Board] is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor [Bailiff]'s leadership."


I am still stunned by the 250 number. If we go back 50 years, and average 25 recruits a year, that is 1250 former players, more or less. Twenty percent signed this petition!

I don't see why it would matter if 1250 players signed a petition. He was still a less than mediocre coach.

Whoosh.

I am surprised it is that many. But when that many knowledgeable people express an opinion favorable to him, I have to wonder what the rest of us are missing.
08-28-2017 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #45
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 01:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:17 PM)ranfin Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:55 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  This does not make sense. I don't believe it. Why would you even have such a petition ? You have any actual evidence of such a petition? Some of the players I talked to said preparation before some games were terrible. Sounds like fake news .
(08-28-2017 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-27-2017 11:49 PM)mrbig Wrote:  "If this [Board] is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor [Bailiff]'s leadership."


I am still stunned by the 250 number. If we go back 50 years, and average 25 recruits a year, that is 1250 former players, more or less. Twenty percent signed this petition!

I don't see why it would matter if 1250 players signed a petition. He was still a less than mediocre coach.

Whoosh.

I am surprised it is that many. But when that many knowledgeable people express an opinion favorable to him, I have to wonder what the rest of us are missing.

I don't think any of us are "missing" anything. I think most, if not all of us, recognize Bailiff's strengths, which all fall on the quality of his character and how he runs the program (developing quality young men).

However, most of us have grown tired of the weaknesses that Bailiff cannot overcome, all of which have to do with the actual coaching of a football team. At some point, new blood is needed and those strengths cannot compensate for those weaknesses.
08-28-2017 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,536
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #46
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 01:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 12:17 PM)ranfin Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 11:55 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  This does not make sense. I don't believe it. Why would you even have such a petition ? You have any actual evidence of such a petition? Some of the players I talked to said preparation before some games were terrible. Sounds like fake news .
(08-28-2017 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am still stunned by the 250 number. If we go back 50 years, and average 25 recruits a year, that is 1250 former players, more or less. Twenty percent signed this petition!

I don't see why it would matter if 1250 players signed a petition. He was still a less than mediocre coach.

Whoosh.

I am surprised it is that many. But when that many knowledgeable people express an opinion favorable to him, I have to wonder what the rest of us are missing.

I don't think any of us are "missing" anything. I think most, if not all of us, recognize Bailiff's strengths, which all fall on the quality of his character and how he runs the program (developing quality young men).

However, most of us have grown tired of the weaknesses that Bailiff cannot overcome, all of which have to do with the actual coaching of a football team. At some point, new blood is needed and those strengths cannot compensate for those weaknesses.

No argument from me. I just wonder why 250 former players did not think he should be fired. Are they less knowledgeable than you and me?
08-28-2017 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
If the recipients of the athletic largess (i.e. scholarships) themselves are satisfied with the continued legacy of a sub-par program, then perhaps the correct path is the slow motion death of Rice as a Division 1 football school.

My stake in the football program is as an alumnus of the school, not as a participant and holder of any legacy. If the alumni of the football program as a bloc that size are satisfied with the perception of the program (and it is *their* program more than mine due to the blood, sweat, toil, and tears they expended for it) as a (maybe less than) third-rate program, why shouldn't the program be left on the (decaying) orbit it is on?

I mean, it is kind of like the decision of the family for someone on life support, as the closer that the family members are the more import their view should hold. In this case the direct family would be the football program's alumni, and mere graduates of Rice are more like distant 5th cousins....

That mention of 250 players does send a message in how "graduates" of the program view it and what they wish for it to be.

Just a thought.
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2017 02:44 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-28-2017 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChicagoOwl (BS '07) Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,252
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 15
I Root For: YOU!
Location: The frozen tundra
Post: #48
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  That mention of 250 players does send a message in how "graduates" of the program view it and what they wish for it to be.

???
Definitely not. Some posts here by former players are evidence, if any is needed.
It's an indication of whether they think *firing Bailiff* is the *solution* that can reverse the program's decline.
And what they're saying is no, it's not. What's needed is a long-term strategy and 5x or whatever increase in resources.

We can disagree with their assessment, but it's not an implicit endorsement of the program's trajectory.
08-28-2017 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,654
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 02:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 01:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think any of us are "missing" anything. I think most, if not all of us, recognize Bailiff's strengths, which all fall on the quality of his character and how he runs the program (developing quality young men).
However, most of us have grown tired of the weaknesses that Bailiff cannot overcome, all of which have to do with the actual coaching of a football team. At some point, new blood is needed and those strengths cannot compensate for those weaknesses.
No argument from me. I just wonder why 250 former players did not think he should be fired. Are they less knowledgeable than you and me?

I think the prevailing opinion among a lot of former players is that it simply cannot be done within the current constraints, and that it is therefore not fair to hold Bailiff accountable for results when matters beyond his control prevent the attainment of the results that we want. I think the perception is that Bailiff is a decent person who treats players well, and the 250 includes some who played for Bailiff and want to see him retained for that reason, and others who played for other coaches about whom they did not feel that such things could be said, and they want to see Bailiff retained for that reason.

I'm fully aware that there are some significant limitations imposed on Bailiff and the athletic program in general, that are not imposed on other programs. The insistence upon proper student-athletes I fully support. A lot of the other stuff is stupid and/or superfluous and accomplishes nothing useful. Those things should therefore be eliminated. I think Bailiff is a reasonable person who tries to work within the unreasonable constraints placed upon him. Todd Graham was an unreasonable person who refused to work under those constraints, and got a lot of them changed. I think there are a number of people in the administration who would prefer not to have to deal with another such loose cannon. But i don't see those things changing until another unreasonable person takes over. Isn't there an Einstein quote about all progress depending upon unreasonable people? I think this may be an example.

But more to the point of my concern, none of those things caused us to start our first offensive series with a delay of game and two false starts. Nor do they explain any others of a number of obvious preparation and execution errors. And because the number of such errors seems to be pretty consistently alarming for any Bailiff-coached team, I simply do not believe that he is the best person to coach this football team.

To succeed at Rice, I think you have to recruit as well as possible in order to narrow the inevitable talent gap, you have to run contrarian schemes that present preparation problems for opponents in order to bridge that gap, and you have to execute those schemes to perfection in order to win. I thought David did a good job of the first for several years, resulting in the 2012-2014 run. But I don't think he has ever done a good job of the other two pieces.

As for the BOT, I think they feel that they are doing a reasonable job of supporting the program. They are subsidizing it to the tune of $20-plus million a year. And their primary objective is to be good stewards of the endowment. So I don't really think they can be blamed for the kinds of things that are going wrong. As far as investing more, we were all told 4-5 years ago that the EZF was the key to getting better. Well, we built it and the trajectory has been steadily downward ever since it was announced that we were going to do it. Quite frankly, the program has to produce in order to convince the BOT that increased investment is justified. And so far, it hasn't.
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2017 03:01 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
08-28-2017 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 12:51 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 09:15 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Owls going to TCU. https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/stat...9746359296
Thank God it's for use of a practice field, not to play them

I was hoping it was to get their coaches to prepare the Rice team.

I could not watch past the first quarter, and I hardly ever leave a game that I care about before it is over, even if it involves just changing the channel.
08-28-2017 03:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ranger Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,021
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For: SOF/Owl Basebal
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
Posters have a good point that DB and any coach would encounter difficulties to winning here. Probably the same could have been said in baseball in the early 1990s. But the thing is, DB has not done a good job, regardless of the constraints. Maybe he cannot win, but he could do a professional job of coaching the team, instead of simply sending it out on the field with little preparation. He leaves the impression that he is clueless. And clueless people do not deserve anything like a million per year. Clueless people should not make more than a superb faculty.

It is kind of like this. In the mid 90s, I worked in Moscow. With the lack of investment rules and infrastructure, it was very hard to get things done. And it took a long time. Some people would use that as an excuse to do nothing. When their bosses in the US would ask about the lack of progress, the Moscow based personnel would cite the difficulties of getting things done in Russia. Many times though, they used that excuse as cover for expending little effort. And yet, some guys expended the effort and succeeded.

Everyone realizes that, at least at present, it is hard to win at Rice. But if you sit back and don't try, you will make that a self fulfilling prophecy.
08-28-2017 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Almadenmike Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,573
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 161
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: San Jose, Calif.

DonatorsNew Orleans BowlDonators
Post: #52
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 03:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ... I think Bailiff is a reasonable person who tries to work within the unreasonable constraints placed upon him. Todd Graham was an unreasonable person who refused to work under those constraints, and got a lot of them changed. I think there are a number of people in the administration who would prefer not to have to deal with another such loose cannon. But i don't see those things changing until another unreasonable person takes over. Isn't there an Einstein quote about all progress depending upon unreasonable people? I think this may be an example.

The quote is from "Man and Superman," written by George Bernard Shaw ... on page 238 of this book, in the "Maxims for Revolutionists" section.

The famous quote ("The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.") is followed by ... "The man who listens to Reason is lost: Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her."
08-28-2017 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
The problem with everything I am hearing here is that there *is* no way forward.

1) DB is a great guy, less than mediocre coach.
2) Rice has inherent problems recruiting
3) The program is under-supported by both the fan base and the BOT
4) The BOT's duty is to protect the endowment, not make bad investments
5) A more than mediocre coach will be a far more than present financial investment
6) Only a more than competent coach will be able to 'over-recruit'
7) Fan and alumni base wont make the time, emotional, and monetary investment in the program
8) BOT *might* make the investment, but *only* when positive results are made

Every single strand here depends on other strands. In order to float the program somehow at least two of the tent poles has to be stood up on its own and magically.

The *only* way out of the spaghetti plate is something that Hambone brought up -- have to up the recruiting to get the UT, A&M, etc. 3rd choices, *and* ensure a coaching staff that will tailor the program to the strengths of the players that they can get.

But, then it boils down to: will the financial commitment be made to get not just that coach that can do that, but the staff to back it up.

Which then devolves to the Stanford issue: can the Rice base self start this? (i.e. one cannot pin the hopes on the BOT, they are doing the correct thing vis a vis their guidance.)

I think the question has to boil down to can and will the Rice community do what the Stanford community did and outside fund a so-called 'self-start' fund?

I dont see any other way out of the morass that the Rice football program has been steered into.
08-28-2017 03:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,139
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #54
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The problem with everything I am hearing here is that there *is* no way forward.

1) DB is a great guy, less than mediocre coach.
2) Rice has inherent problems recruiting
3) The program is under-supported by both the fan base and the BOT
4) The BOT's duty is to protect the endowment, not make bad investments
5) A more than mediocre coach will be a far more than present financial investment
6) Only a more than competent coach will be able to 'over-recruit'
7) Fan and alumni base wont make the time, emotional, and monetary investment in the program
8) BOT *might* make the investment, but *only* when positive results are made

Every single strand here depends on other strands. In order to float the program somehow at least two of the tent poles has to be stood up on its own and magically.

The *only* way out of the spaghetti plate is something that Hambone brought up -- have to up the recruiting to get the UT, A&M, etc. 3rd choices, *and* ensure a coaching staff that will tailor the program to the strengths of the players that they can get.

But, then it boils down to: will the financial commitment be made to get not just that coach that can do that, but the staff to back it up.

Which then devolves to the Stanford issue: can the Rice base self start this? (i.e. one cannot pin the hopes on the BOT, they are doing the correct thing vis a vis their guidance.)

I think the question has to boil down to can and will the Rice community do what the Stanford community did and outside fund a so-called 'self-start' fund?

I dont see any other way out of the morass that the Rice football program has been steered into.

Of course, the Stanford "community" consisted of two dot.com multi-billionaires who pretty much funded the Athletic Department and the renovation of all facilities.
08-28-2017 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
Publicity because we were the only college game in the time slot and it was ESPN, but we should have played better to make the publicity positive.

quote='NYNightOwl' pid='14530386' dateline='1503821480']
By the way, I talked to some folks in the athletic dept. and there was a nice revenue positive payout from the game. So at least there's that.
[/quote]
08-28-2017 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
75src Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,591
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
And the split is ruining college football. The P5 is trying to be like the NFL but the NFL is better at what they do. The G5 has most of the expenses of the P5 but not much of the publicity and revenue.

quote='Barney' pid='14530925' dateline='1503856093']
I'm not as upset as some of you. Maybe I would be if I'd traveled all the way to Australia to see that....

My principal takeaway from this game was how extreme the separation of P5 from G5 has been allowed to become. "College Football" as a single entity doesn't exist anymore. There's P5 college football and there's the rest of college football.

Besides simply being dominated physically, the other flaws I saw were relatively few and simple: we have very young and inexperienced QB's, and we don't look very well coached/disciplined on offense.

On the other hand, I saw a number of positives, which others have listed. I also saw us pressure the QB better against a huge and experienced OL, and with at least a couple of sacks. I saw minimal separation of Stanford's receivers from our DB's, and almost nothing over the top (miracle!).
[/quote]
08-28-2017 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChicagoOwl (BS '07) Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,252
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 15
I Root For: YOU!
Location: The frozen tundra
Post: #57
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The problem with everything I am hearing here is that there *is* no way forward.

1) DB is a great guy, less than mediocre coach.
2) Rice has inherent problems recruiting
3) The program is under-supported by both the fan base and the BOT
4) The BOT's duty is to protect the endowment, not make bad investments
5) A more than mediocre coach will be a far more than present financial investment
6) Only a more than competent coach will be able to 'over-recruit'
7) Fan and alumni base wont make the time, emotional, and monetary investment in the program
8) BOT *might* make the investment, but *only* when positive results are made

Every single strand here depends on other strands. In order to float the program somehow at least two of the tent poles has to be stood up on its own and magically.

The *only* way out of the spaghetti plate is something that Hambone brought up -- have to up the recruiting to get the UT, A&M, etc. 3rd choices, *and* ensure a coaching staff that will tailor the program to the strengths of the players that they can get.

But, then it boils down to: will the financial commitment be made to get not just that coach that can do that, but the staff to back it up.

Which then devolves to the Stanford issue: can the Rice base self start this? (i.e. one cannot pin the hopes on the BOT, they are doing the correct thing vis a vis their guidance.)

I think the question has to boil down to can and will the Rice community do what the Stanford community did and outside fund a so-called 'self-start' fund?

I dont see any other way out of the morass that the Rice football program has been steered into.

If there's no plausible path to improvement, I'd much rather axe the program than have it look like this.
08-28-2017 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BufflOwl Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 575
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation: 19
I Root For: Winning
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(08-28-2017 03:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The problem with everything I am hearing here is that there *is* no way forward.

1) DB is a great guy, less than mediocre coach.
2) Rice has inherent problems recruiting
3) The program is under-supported by both the fan base and the BOT
4) The BOT's duty is to protect the endowment, not make bad investments
5) A more than mediocre coach will be a far more than present financial investment
6) Only a more than competent coach will be able to 'over-recruit'
7) Fan and alumni base wont make the time, emotional, and monetary investment in the program
8) BOT *might* make the investment, but *only* when positive results are made

Every single strand here depends on other strands. In order to float the program somehow at least two of the tent poles has to be stood up on its own and magically.

The *only* way out of the spaghetti plate is something that Hambone brought up -- have to up the recruiting to get the UT, A&M, etc. 3rd choices, *and* ensure a coaching staff that will tailor the program to the strengths of the players that they can get.

But, then it boils down to: will the financial commitment be made to get not just that coach that can do that, but the staff to back it up.

Which then devolves to the Stanford issue: can the Rice base self start this? (i.e. one cannot pin the hopes on the BOT, they are doing the correct thing vis a vis their guidance.)

I think the question has to boil down to can and will the Rice community do what the Stanford community did and outside fund a so-called 'self-start' fund?

I dont see any other way out of the morass that the Rice football program has been steered into.

Of course, the Stanford "community" consisted of two dot.com multi-billionaires who pretty much funded the Athletic Department and the renovation of all facilities.

That's the Stanford model? Why are we trying to do what they did then???
08-28-2017 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
owl40 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Owls
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 04:27 PM)75src Wrote:  And the split is ruining college football. The P5 is trying to be like the NFL but the NFL is better at what they do. The G5 has most of the expenses of the P5 but not much of the publicity and revenue.

quote='Barney' pid='14530925' dateline='1503856093']
I'm not as upset as some of you. Maybe I would be if I'd traveled all the way to Australia to see that....

My principal takeaway from this game was how extreme the separation of P5 from G5 has been allowed to become. "College Football" as a single entity doesn't exist anymore. There's P5 college football and there's the rest of college football.

Besides simply being dominated physically, the other flaws I saw were relatively few and simple: we have very young and inexperienced QB's, and we don't look very well coached/disciplined on offense.

On the other hand, I saw a number of positives, which others have listed. I also saw us pressure the QB better against a huge and experienced OL, and with at least a couple of sacks. I saw minimal separation of Stanford's receivers from our DB's, and almost nothing over the top (miracle!).

While some merit to this macro trend, not sure I buy it 100% at a micro/Rice level. Rice is bad and going backwards. Other G5 teams are not.

Just this weekend, Colorodo St. (G5). beat Oregon St.(P5), Portland St (FCS) gave BYU (who I consider P5) all they could handle, and Rice was beaten by 50+ points.
08-28-2017 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,139
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #60
RE: Rice v Stanford ***Postgame Thread***
(08-28-2017 04:27 PM)75src Wrote:  And the split is ruining college football. The P5 is trying to be like the NFL but the NFL is better at what they do. The G5 has most of the expenses of the P5 but not much of the publicity and revenue.

quote='Barney' pid='14530925' dateline='1503856093']
I'm not as upset as some of you. Maybe I would be if I'd traveled all the way to Australia to see that....

My principal takeaway from this game was how extreme the separation of P5 from G5 has been allowed to become. "College Football" as a single entity doesn't exist anymore. There's P5 college football and there's the rest of college football.

Besides simply being dominated physically, the other flaws I saw were relatively few and simple: we have very young and inexperienced QB's, and we don't look very well coached/disciplined on offense.

On the other hand, I saw a number of positives, which others have listed. I also saw us pressure the QB better against a huge and experienced OL, and with at least a couple of sacks. I saw minimal separation of Stanford's receivers from our DB's, and almost nothing over the top (miracle!).
[/quote]

You do realize Stanford left two of their starting OL home, right? Yes, they had an all-american Center and two other starters playing (one who was a backup last year), but let's not exaggerate things.
08-28-2017 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.