(09-24-2017 01:04 PM)owl40 Wrote:  On Monday, we will hear the usual, 'loss is on me, we have to get them ready, starting 6 players that were not starters in fall camp including 3 third teamers, etc, etc.' All of that is true, but when you lose to a Bottom 10 team that are the teams that DB usually beats, you know this is even a worse Rice team than normal over the past decade.

For folks here, I see three choices...a) Give more and support more to show that you want Rice FB to be successful and it just requires more resources for current resources (i.e,., the petition group), b) Give less and support less (i.e., many here) or c) Give same and support/care less.

I am in the c group which means that I will write a check and keep my tickets b/c I want Rice to have my $. It is me giving back to the University which positively impacted my life. But my emotional connection to the current program as long as this is willing to be accepted has left. I won't be at any games this year and have already found myself 'checking-out' in my free time spent on Rice Football.

Positive change to the product on the field will bring me back but am a point where investing emotional energy in this product is a fool's errand. We have over a decade of results that show that with talent, Rice can beat bad teams and go to bowl games. But even with talent, teams are not competitive against other teams with talent. But when talent and/or injuries are present, Rice cannot even beat bad teams.

So to JK, Leebron, and BoT, until change happens, you can have my $ but have lost me giving my time and heart.

I've been in this mindset with regard to Rice football for the past 3 years.

Just got my "Rice Football - how was your experience?" email survey.

Responding was cathartic, but ultimately meaningless. The Admin obviously doesn't listen to or care about what long time season ticket holders / non-major financial supporters think.

(09-24-2017 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Just got my "Rice Football - how was your experience?" email survey.

Responding was cathartic, but ultimately meaningless. The Admin obviously doesn't listen to or care about what long time season ticket holders / non-major financial supporters think.

The poor souls who are doing the best to stem the tide against the leaking dam actually care and read these. Unfortunately they have been provided with no shovels....

(09-24-2017 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Just got my "Rice Football - how was your experience?" email survey.

Responding was cathartic, but ultimately meaningless. The Admin obviously doesn't listen to or care about what long time season ticket holders / non-major financial supporters think.

I went to the Defense Language Institute 25 years ago. The previous commander had instituted an enforced hour long study hall at the end of the day. Here is how it happened.

In love with his "brilliant" idea, he conducted focus groups to get the opinions of students and teachers. Apparently he had been told this was the thing to do. He apparently thought everyone would love the idea. They didn't. 85% opposed it. So he instituted it any way. Using the focus groups to presumably bless his idea was his way of appearing to know what he was doing. But he did not really care about what people thought.

Sounds like the AD surveys are the same thing. Appear to care what stakeholders think, but in the end do what you want.

(09-24-2017 04:00 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Just got my "Rice Football - how was your experience?" email survey.

Responding was cathartic, but ultimately meaningless. The Admin obviously doesn't listen to or care about what long time season ticket holders / non-major financial supporters think.

I went to the Defense Language Institute 25 years ago. The previous commander had instituted an enforced hour long study hall at the end of the day. Here is how it happened.

In love with his "brilliant" idea, he conducted focus groups to get the opinions of students and teachers. Apparently he had been told this was the thing to do. He apparently thought everyone would love the idea. They didn't. 85% opposed it. So he instituted it any way. Using the focus groups to presumably bless his idea was his way of appearing to know what he was doing. But he did not really care about what people thought.

Sounds like the AD surveys are the same thing. Appear to care what stakeholders think, but in the end do what you want.

Bingo. He can also claim to have more information than you do with your sole opinion. Armed with that claim he can do things like create new logos. Then everyone with insider info can tell all of us how much better of a business Rice Athletics is now under these people than we have ever seen before. When all along all that was really needed is what we all knew before they arrived. Sigh.

How many were at the game? Rice said almost 19k but the shots I saw make that seem crazy.

(09-24-2017 05:25 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  How many were at the game? Rice said almost 19k but the shots I saw make that seem crazy.

My guess is less than 5k. I don't think there was 1500 total on the east side and upper west. More on lower west, but didn't try to estimate that group, but lots of space.

(09-24-2017 05:25 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  How many were at the game? Rice said almost 19k but the shots I saw make that seem crazy.

I'm sure there were much less, but most schools in FBS lie about attendance numbers. Certainly more students tailgating outside the stadium than actually in it for the first quarter.

(09-24-2017 04:58 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 04:00 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 03:46 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Just got my "Rice Football - how was your experience?" email survey.

Responding was cathartic, but ultimately meaningless. The Admin obviously doesn't listen to or care about what long time season ticket holders / non-major financial supporters think.

I went to the Defense Language Institute 25 years ago. The previous commander had instituted an enforced hour long study hall at the end of the day. Here is how it happened.

In love with his "brilliant" idea, he conducted focus groups to get the opinions of students and teachers. Apparently he had been told this was the thing to do. He apparently thought everyone would love the idea. They didn't. 85% opposed it. So he instituted it any way. Using the focus groups to presumably bless his idea was his way of appearing to know what he was doing. But he did not really care about what people thought.

Sounds like the AD surveys are the same thing. Appear to care what stakeholders think, but in the end do what you want.

Bingo. He can also claim to have more information than you do with your sole opinion. Armed with that claim he can do things like create new logos. Then everyone with insider info can tell all of us how much better of a business Rice Athletics is now under these people than we have ever seen before. When all along all that was really needed is what we all knew before they arrived. Sigh.

Yes. "Led brand refresh initiative" or whatever they'll call it will look fine on a resume.

(09-24-2017 02:59 PM)gsloth Wrote:  At least it feels that way to me. That said, Rice's Massey power rating right now is actually better than the final power rating the previous 2 years. That UTEP "beatdown" is keeping this year's rating up. A closer UTEP game probably lowers the power rating a bunch. As UTEP appears to be more and more of an anomaly, the rating will continue to drop.

Independent UMass, without a league (because no one wants them in their league, because they're that much of an anchor) and at 0-5, is rated a TD better than Rice.

Well if you click on the Massey rating for C-USA, it rates Rice at 165. As there are only 130 FBS schools I take it that 34 FCS schools are rated higher than Rice. Charlotte comes in at 196 and UTEP at 213.

(09-24-2017 02:59 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Independent UMass, without a league (because no one wants them in their league, because they're that much of an anchor) and at 0-5, is rated a TD better than Rice.

Final from yesterday:

@Tennessee 17, U. Mass 13

Any guesses as to how Rice would do at Neyland Stadium this season?

(09-24-2017 06:53 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 02:59 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Independent UMass, without a league (because no one wants them in their league, because they're that much of an anchor) and at 0-5, is rated a TD better than Rice.

Final from yesterday:

@Tennessee 17, U. Mass 13

Any guesses as to how Rice would do at Neyland Stadium this season?

48-7. And we would not have the 48.

Early odds I've seen have us three touchdown underdogs to Pitt. Slightly below Bailiff's average scoring deficit against nearly 30 P5 opponents over the course of his career here.

(09-24-2017 06:11 PM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  Well if you click on the Massey rating for C-USA, it rates Rice at 165. As there are only 130 FBS schools I take it that 34 FCS schools are rated higher than Rice. Charlotte comes in at 196 and UTEP at 213.

That's really odd.

This Massey Rating -- https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm -- shows Rice at #124 or 130, all D-1, apparently.

But yes, when you click on Conference USA at the bottom, you get this one -- https://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=11312&s=295489 -- which has Rice at 165, as you say.

I wonder what the link to the complete list of 200+ schools is.

There's this link to the 130 FBS schools: https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/11604/ratings

There's this link to the Div 1 schools: https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s...&sub=11590
You used to get that first, from the main page, but it looks like in the last week or so that he finally made college football just go to his FBS list.

If you want all 500 schools, where the crossovers really aren't statistically deep enough, use this (it's the cfb2017 dropdown): https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s...sub=295489

Rice falls to 165 in here. NW Missouri (at 106, beating no one of note but one huge win over a bad team) and College of San Mateo (at 163, beating no one of note other than thrashing a top 200 team this past weekend) are ahead of Rice. This definitely shows a problem with trying to project everyone in the same pool.

(09-25-2017 03:54 PM)gsloth Wrote:  There's this link to the 130 FBS schools: https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/11604/ratings

There's this link to the Div 1 schools: https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s...&sub=11590
You used to get that first, from the main page, but it looks like in the last week or so that he finally made college football just go to his FBS list.

If you want all 500 schools, where the crossovers really aren't statistically deep enough, use this (it's the cfb2017 dropdown): https://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s...sub=295489

Rice falls to 165 in here. NW Missouri (at 106, beating no one of note but one huge win over a bad team) and College of San Mateo (at 163, beating no one of note other than thrashing a top 200 team this past weekend) are ahead of Rice. This definitely shows a problem with trying to project everyone in the same pool.

Correct. Like, why are we in the top 200?