The first home game of my freshman year was LSU. I remember the freshmen marching en masse, chanting "5,4,3,2. Beat her hell out of LSU" and seeing the shocked looks on the faces of the old folks at the bad language. It was part of our freshman hazing. I guess the hazing is now illegal, but it might help attendance if we could force the freshmen to go to games. Teach 'em young.

OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

(09-01-2017 07:11 PM)Ranger Wrote:  When I went to Rice (68-72), the stadium was jammed for the LSU and UT games, and I think the stadium held 72,000. It was really something. Quite different from maybe several thousand lethargic spectators. But as someone said, we were generally in the games. Our first home game against UT ( might have been 1968), it was 7-7 at the half, and we only lost 21-7. In 1971, Arkansas needed a field goal as time expired to tie us. I think we beat A&M twice while I was at Rice, although that was not then considered to be a major accomplishment. Football at Rice used to be exciting. Northwestern, Stanford and Duke have shown that it does not have to be this way.

I remember those seasons well, Ranger. The FG that Arkansas kicked to tie the game still burns in my remembrance. We didn't win a lot back then, but we certainly looked like we belonged on the field with just about every opponent. I do remember getting toasted by LSU and Tennessee in '68... giving up 48 and 55 points, respectively..IIRC.
The one thing I really remember and miss from those games 'back in the day' was the night games. Like really at night. Under the lights. Till October, everybody that wasn't on TV played their games at night. Certainly a lot more pleasant than a noon start on September 2 in Austin or Baton Rouge.

(09-02-2017 12:30 PM)sts60 Wrote:  OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

I'm am not so happy either with the Australian results. very disappointing.

A lot of people misunderstand my handle. Others choose to misunderstand my attitude and thoughts.

Being optimistic is not the same as being blind, pollyanna-ish, or antirealism, as so many here seem to think.

Before the fact, it is hoping for the best. After the fact, it is looking for silver linings.

Either way, it is a conscious choice to be optimistic, and many here consciously choose not to make it. They choose to expect the worst, rather than hope for the best. OK with me, but not my choice.

I think I have outlived my "best if used by" date largely because of my outlook and attitude. Hope to outlive it a lot more.

I had many PMs with my friend Rick on this, and now that he is gone, I don't know if there are any others like him. I will miss him forever, but mostly I will miss his calm and reasonable voice. The only time I have read this board and wanted to cry.

I hope we get our problems worked out, at least somewhat. I hope we win some games and make decent showings in the ones we lose. But win or lose, I will be for the Owls. All of them. Head Coach to water boy.

Now, let's win the next game. I think we can.

(09-02-2017 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 12:30 PM)sts60 Wrote:  OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

I'm am not so happy either with the Australian results. very disappointing.

A lot of people misunderstand my handle. Others choose to misunderstand my attitude and thoughts.

Being optimistic is not the same as being blind, pollyanna-ish, or antirealism, as so many here seem to think.

Before the fact, it is hoping for the best. After the fact, it is looking for silver linings.

Either way, it is a conscious choice to be optimistic, and many here consciously choose not to make it. They choose to expect the worst, rather than hope for the best. OK with me, but not my choice.

I think I have outlived my "best if used by" date largely because of my outlook and attitude. Hope to outlive it a lot more.

I had many PMs with my friend Rick on this, and now that he is gone, I don't know if there are any others like him. I will miss him forever, but mostly I will miss his calm and reasonable voice. The only time I have read this board and wanted to cry.

I hope we get our problems worked out, at least somewhat. I hope we win some games and make decent showings in the ones we lose. But win or lose, I will be for the Owls. All of them. Head Coach to water boy.

Now, let's win the next game. I think we can.

Kind of a disingenuous statement - each half of the bolded statement is not mutually exclusive. I doubt if there's a person on this board who doesn't hope for the best, even if, due to years of experience, they might be expecting the worst.

(09-02-2017 02:40 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 12:30 PM)sts60 Wrote:  OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

I'm am not so happy either with the Australian results. very disappointing.

A lot of people misunderstand my handle. Others choose to misunderstand my attitude and thoughts.

Being optimistic is not the same as being blind, pollyanna-ish, or antirealism, as so many here seem to think.

Before the fact, it is hoping for the best. After the fact, it is looking for silver linings.

Either way, it is a conscious choice to be optimistic, and many here consciously choose not to make it. They choose to expect the worst, rather than hope for the best. OK with me, but not my choice.

I think I have outlived my "best if used by" date largely because of my outlook and attitude. Hope to outlive it a lot more.

I had many PMs with my friend Rick on this, and now that he is gone, I don't know if there are any others like him. I will miss him forever, but mostly I will miss his calm and reasonable voice. The only time I have read this board and wanted to cry.

I hope we get our problems worked out, at least somewhat. I hope we win some games and make decent showings in the ones we lose. But win or lose, I will be for the Owls. All of them. Head Coach to water boy.

Now, let's win the next game. I think we can.

Kind of a disingenuous statement - each half of the bolded statement is not mutually exclusive. I doubt if there's a person on this board who doesn't hope for the best, even if, due to years of experience, they might be expecting the worst.

Just like being optimistic is not exclusive of being realistic, as so many here have told me. But I see your point.

I guess the key word is "expecting". I was not expecting what happened in Sydney. I was hoping for better. Actually, much better. But I do think some people expected exactly what happened, or worse, and if so, their hope was tiny.

(09-02-2017 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 02:40 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 12:30 PM)sts60 Wrote:  OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

I'm am not so happy either with the Australian results. very disappointing.

A lot of people misunderstand my handle. Others choose to misunderstand my attitude and thoughts.

Being optimistic is not the same as being blind, pollyanna-ish, or antirealism, as so many here seem to think.

Before the fact, it is hoping for the best. After the fact, it is looking for silver linings.

Either way, it is a conscious choice to be optimistic, and many here consciously choose not to make it. They choose to expect the worst, rather than hope for the best. OK with me, but not my choice.

I think I have outlived my "best if used by" date largely because of my outlook and attitude. Hope to outlive it a lot more.

I had many PMs with my friend Rick on this, and now that he is gone, I don't know if there are any others like him. I will miss him forever, but mostly I will miss his calm and reasonable voice. The only time I have read this board and wanted to cry.

I hope we get our problems worked out, at least somewhat. I hope we win some games and make decent showings in the ones we lose. But win or lose, I will be for the Owls. All of them. Head Coach to water boy.

Now, let's win the next game. I think we can.

Kind of a disingenuous statement - each half of the bolded statement is not mutually exclusive. I doubt if there's a person on this board who doesn't hope for the best, even if, due to years of experience, they might be expecting the worst.

Just like being optimistic is not exclusive of being realistic, as so many here have told me. But I see your point.

I guess the key word is "expecting". I was not expecting what happened in Sydney. I was hoping for better. Actually, much better. But I do think some people expected exactly what happened, or worse, and if so, their hope was tiny.

Buddy, do explain why our hope should be anything more than tiny based on a combination of last year's performance, the inexperience at every skill position but RB, and Bailiff's history against any team ranked inside the Top 75? Even I didn't expect the outcome to be as bad as it was last Saturday, but my expectation was based on my perception of reality; it wasn't simply expecting the worst.

(09-02-2017 03:11 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 02:40 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 01:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 12:30 PM)sts60 Wrote:  OO, your handle made me want to be optimistic about something.

I'm optimistic we can't look any worse than we did against Stanford.

I'm OK with us being overmatched; not happy with it, but I can deal with it. I'm not OK with us looking so comically inept. But I don't think we can look more so than we did last week.

Well, it can be worse - we can look equally silly, but against a much worse team. So maybe I'm not even optimistic in that regard. I hope I am pleasantly surprised; whether Bailiff stays or goes, I don't want the players and the school to be embarrassed.

I'm am not so happy either with the Australian results. very disappointing.

A lot of people misunderstand my handle. Others choose to misunderstand my attitude and thoughts.

Being optimistic is not the same as being blind, pollyanna-ish, or antirealism, as so many here seem to think.

Before the fact, it is hoping for the best. After the fact, it is looking for silver linings.

Either way, it is a conscious choice to be optimistic, and many here consciously choose not to make it. They choose to expect the worst, rather than hope for the best. OK with me, but not my choice.

I think I have outlived my "best if used by" date largely because of my outlook and attitude. Hope to outlive it a lot more.

I had many PMs with my friend Rick on this, and now that he is gone, I don't know if there are any others like him. I will miss him forever, but mostly I will miss his calm and reasonable voice. The only time I have read this board and wanted to cry.

I hope we get our problems worked out, at least somewhat. I hope we win some games and make decent showings in the ones we lose. But win or lose, I will be for the Owls. All of them. Head Coach to water boy.

Now, let's win the next game. I think we can.

Kind of a disingenuous statement - each half of the bolded statement is not mutually exclusive. I doubt if there's a person on this board who doesn't hope for the best, even if, due to years of experience, they might be expecting the worst.

Just like being optimistic is not exclusive of being realistic, as so many here have told me. But I see your point.

I guess the key word is "expecting". I was not expecting what happened in Sydney. I was hoping for better. Actually, much better. But I do think some people expected exactly what happened, or worse, and if so, their hope was tiny.

Buddy, do explain why our hope should be anything more than tiny based on a combination of last year's performance, the inexperience at every skill position but RB, and Bailiff's history against any team ranked inside the Top 75? Even I didn't expect the outcome to be as bad as it was last Saturday, but my expectation was based on my perception of reality; it wasn't simply expecting the worst.

Because I am not picking winners to bet on at Caesar's, I am rooting for MY team. I don't need to pore over the ATS results or the top75 results, or the level of experience. I will do that for the Jets or for the Patriots, but not for my alma mater. I don't bet on Rice, simply because I cannot stand to be against them in any way, and if I bet on them to cover, sometimes I must also better on them to not cover. So I don't analyse them, I just root for them, same as I did for my sons when they competed.

What outcome were you expecting? I will presume your hopes were for better than your expectation, whatever it was. If you can, tell me in the form of a score. What were you expecting? 40-21? 54-13? 59-6?

I had no expectation, in the sense of a score or a performance level. I knew it was possible to be a bad day, even a very bad day, but I didn't expect it to be a bad day. I hoped it wouldn't be. I hoped to see the team do well, and they didn't. What should have been my attitude? Is there something wrong with that? Should I have been sitting there saying, well I expected 77-0, so they did well?

What kind of pessimism do you guys want from me? How far down must I get on the team before you guys will be happy with me? How much negativity must I display?

I hope we beat UTEP. I hope that is not too positive for anybody.

When we get a new coach, I will be the same. Not more optimistic, not less. New coaches are no guarantee of better results. Ask UT. Yeah, I know where you are going next. I long ago agreed with you guys that Bailiff won't get us there. I expected him to be fired long before now. But I didn't know about the 250 players then. In any case, not up to me. All I can do is hope we do well, today, with what we have.

Perhaps someone else has pointed out this - but ESPN College Football Power Index has Rice favored to win only 1 game (Florida International).

I personally enjoy and embrace OOs position as well. I don't think either of us expect a 11-0 season, but we both stand behind the team and will support them regardless of who the coach is or what their record is. As to the national polls, I tend to believe they are more a reflection of past results than any kind of accurate barometer of what is to come. How can anyone know what to expect of new OC and DC, even given the same HC? Keep the faith OO, I am there with you!

(09-02-2017 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the key word is "expecting". I was not expecting what happened in Sydney. I was hoping for better. Actually, much better. But I do think some people expected exactly what happened, or worse, and if so, their hope was tiny.

Well, I was hoping for better but what happened was pretty much what I expected. We gave up a long breakaway run on Stanford's first possession and then had a delay of game and two false starts on ours. I'm sorry, but giving up big plays on defense and delay and false starts on offense seem to be the hallmarks of Bailiff-coached football teams. I can hope for different, and do, but at this point there is no basis for expecting different.

(09-03-2017 09:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-02-2017 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess the key word is "expecting". I was not expecting what happened in Sydney. I was hoping for better. Actually, much better. But I do think some people expected exactly what happened, or worse, and if so, their hope was tiny.

Well, I was hoping for better but what happened was pretty much what I expected. We gave up a long breakaway run on Stanford's first possession and then had a delay of game and two false starts on ours. I'm sorry, but giving up big plays on defense and delay and false starts on offense seem to be the hallmarks of Bailiff-coached football teams. I can hope for different, and do, but at this point there is no basis for expecting different.

I hoped we wouldn't do that. I did not expect either that we would or would not.

I tend to take things play by play.

I could not watch if my expectations were disaster. I want to watch.

(09-03-2017 07:44 AM)jhruzek Wrote:  I personally enjoy and embrace OOs position as well. I don't think either of us expect a 11-0 season, but we both stand behind the team and will support them regardless of who the coach is or what their record is. As to the national polls, I tend to believe they are more a reflection of past results than any kind of accurate barometer of what is to come. How can anyone know what to expect of new OC and DC, even given the same HC? Keep the faith OO, I am there with you!

I think you are also misrepresenting Parliament members with your bolded statement. We all stand behind the TEAM and support them regardless of who the coach is. That's different from being dismayed and amazed that our coach of 10+ mostly horrid years hasn't been fired yet.

(09-02-2017 11:43 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Perhaps someone else has pointed out this - but ESPN College Football Power Index has Rice favored to win only 1 game (Florida International).

Well I haven't checked in with the ol FPI since the preseason. While it only gave us a 1.5% chance to beat Stanford, it had us as favorites in 3 games, near-toss-ups 40-50% in two more, and 1-in-4 (25%) in four others.
Based on that I reasoned we'd have a good shot at winning our five "best chances" and a punchers chance at taking 1 or 2 of the 4 harder ones. That could get us to 7 wins. And if we won the seven 'most likelies' then the division title is Rice's (that would include going 6-0 in the West).
I sure wasn't pleased with our result in Sydney. But while I haven't rechecked FPI I'm confident this parlay is still quite squarely on the table. I'm eager to see how we respond after two weeks of practice, studying film of the Stanford debacle, and dealing with the hurricane aftermath. Next week isn't "make or break", but it's our first real chance to see how we line up against a key divisional opponent. We do need to win. Hopefully we win by a lot, in which case I'll be glad to start making some room on the bandwagon...

(09-03-2017 09:56 AM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 07:44 AM)jhruzek Wrote:  I personally enjoy and embrace OOs position as well. I don't think either of us expect a 11-0 season, but we both stand behind the team and will support them regardless of who the coach is or what their record is. As to the national polls, I tend to believe they are more a reflection of past results than any kind of accurate barometer of what is to come. How can anyone know what to expect of new OC and DC, even given the same HC? Keep the faith OO, I am there with you!

I think you are also misrepresenting Parliament members with your bolded statement. We all stand behind the TEAM and support them regardless of who the coach is. That's different from being dismayed and amazed that our coach of 10+ mostly horrid years hasn't been fired yet.

IMO, the team consists of more than just the players. Maybe that is the problem.

Yeah, I' m ready to,try another coach. But I lack confidence that it will be a quick fix. I point to last weekend's results in Austin and Waco.

Whether it is a quick fix or not, I will be supporting the team, top to bottom.

It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a fix. When you have a long road ahead, the sooner you start, the sooner you arrive.

(09-03-2017 01:10 PM)Ranger Wrote:  It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a fix. When you have a long road ahead, the sooner you start, the sooner you arrive.

If by fix, you mean we start winning 10+ games a year, make the top 25 consistently, and get invited to a P5 conference, then I agree, we cannot start soon enough. But I remember a few decades where changing the coaches did not change the outcomes, so color me skeptical. I expect that we will just change coaches every 3-5 years for a while.

I think what you really mean is that it will be attempt to fix.

But by all means, go ahead. I am not in your way.

(09-03-2017 01:10 PM)Ranger Wrote:  It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a fix. When you have a long road ahead, the sooner you start, the sooner you arrive.

The longer you shove it into the back of the garage and ignore it, the more time, effort, and capital it is to fix, if it is deemed fixable at all after a certain point.

(09-03-2017 02:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-03-2017 01:10 PM)Ranger Wrote:  It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a fix. When you have a long road ahead, the sooner you start, the sooner you arrive.

The longer you shove it into the back of the garage and ignore it, the more time, effort, and capital it is to fix, if it is deemed fixable at all after a certain point.

True. If you are waiting for me to get out of the way, you have my permission to proceed.

(09-03-2017 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I could not watch if my expectations were disaster. I want to watch.

I've reached the point where my expectations are pretty much disaster. Therefore I don't usually want to watch. I tuned into the game in Sydney at the start. After Stanford's first possession and ours, I left it on for a while but did other things without paying attention. After the half, I turned it off completely. The analysts were poking fun at Rice's ineptitude, and quite frankly I had to agree.