(12-07-2017 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:22 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But I will be reasonably happy even with a bad record *if* it isn't a result of a team looking like a haphazard 5A prep wannabe.

This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.


Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

You don't ever actually make an argument. You just force others to repeat what's already been said and restate the obvious until they're too bored to continue. You want someone to define "well-prepared?" Seriously?

No, it has been defined. I expect the same stuff to continue to happen, though hopefully in lesser measure than before. So if we go 2-11, but are "well prepared", then why are we losing?

Bad luck?

A well-prepared team will not go 2-11 against next year's schedule. "Well-prepared" and "2-11" are mutually exclusive in this instance.

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But I will be reasonably happy even with a bad record *if* it isn't a result of a team looking like a haphazard 5A prep wannabe.

This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.


Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

A good start would be to never ever repeat anything like the 1st series of last season for which Bloomgren had a front row seat.

False start
Delay of game
Rush for -1 yd
False start
Rush for 1 yd
Rush for 2 yds
Punt

3 plays -6 yds TOP 2:19 minutes. Season over for many fans.

(12-07-2017 11:31 AM)junrice Wrote:  if Rice ranked 80/128 for the next season, which is a reasonable rank.
the probability you beat a 100th team is not 1, it could be low as sth like 65%.

in that case, win 4-5 games is very reasonable. We should watch what coached do in the first two years, not result oriented.

I agree that process is more important than results for next year.

I think everyone on this board understands the concept of basic statistics and probability. That also means there is a reasonable chance of beating teams ranked better than 80/128 (though 128 feels very low). Here's how I am thinking about it. If we pretend that North Texas is ranked #66 instead of #65, then Rice literally plays 8 games against teams ranked in the bottom half of FBS plus 1 game against a poor FCS team. I think Rice will win at least 6 of those games, and that ignores the opportunity to beat UH, Wake, or LSU.

(12-07-2017 11:45 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But I will be reasonably happy even with a bad record *if* it isn't a result of a team looking like a haphazard 5A prep wannabe.

This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.


Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

A good start would be to never ever repeat anything like the 1st series of last season for which Bloomgren had a front row seat.

False start
Delay of game
Rush for -1 yd
False start
Rush for 1 yd
Rush for 2 yds
Punt

3 plays -6 yds TOP 2:19 minutes. Season over for many fans.

yes, of course. So if we instead start with a three and out without penalties, will that count as being prepared?

The Bailiff thing is over. Now we are talking about Bloomgren.

I'll tell you what would show me that the team is prepared. Driving for a TD on the first possession, and the next, and the next...building a lead and holding it to the gun for a W.

Hope it happens. I will not be satisfied with a bunch of losses regardless of how many or how few penalties we incur.

(12-07-2017 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:22 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But I will be reasonably happy even with a bad record *if* it isn't a result of a team looking like a haphazard 5A prep wannabe.

This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.
Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

You don't ever actually make an argument. You just force others to repeat what's already been said and restate the obvious until they're too bored to continue. You want someone to define "well-prepared?" Seriously?

No, it has been defined. I expect the same stuff to continue to happen, though hopefully in lesser measure than before. So if we go 2-11, but are "well prepared", then why are we losing?

If we are well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Preparation is what separates winners from losers.

If we were playing Alabama, Auburn, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Southern Cal, Washington, UTEP, Charlotte, and aTm, then we could be well prepared and go 2-11. But we don't. Against the schedule we play, if we are truly well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Can't happen.

As far as the "Rice beating Rice" stuff, that has become so common that it is almost a joke. Sure, Alabama jumps offsides, and Clemson gets penalties, and Oklahoma drops passes, but they don't "beat themselves" six times in a season. Maybe once, maybe in a bad year twice, but that's about it. There's a difference between so-and-so had a false start 3 weeks ago, and we had multiple ones every week. I don't quite understand why you never seem to have grasped that difference, but I think most people understand it. Nobody plays perfect football. But nobody--or at least nobody who wins consistently--plays as sloppy as we have almost all the time under Bailiff. I've said before, Bailiff's reputation before Rice was that his teams played hard but were sloppy and made a lot of unforced errors. That would pretty much describe his Rice teams.

I'm not going to complain the first time we false start. But if we develop a habit of doing it repeatedly in key situations, yes, I will complain. Because we can't afford to do that.

I caught a brief segment of the Texans game last Sunday. They are probably too beat up to play well right now, but they had a sequence just before the half last Sunday that reminded me of Rice. They had 3rd and 4 around the Tennessee 35. They had 3 consecutive false starts that pushed them back to 3rd and 19 around midfield. They got a pretty heroic pass and catch to get the first down, then promptly threw a pick in the end zone on the next play. I didn't watch any more, reminded me too much of a David Bailiff Rice team. Arguably, with throwing the pick, it didn't really matter. But if they just need a normal play, instead of the heroic play, to get the first down, then maybe they save the heroic play to score the TD. So maybe it did matter. Bottom line, good teams can overcome doing it once or twice. Bad teams can't overcome it when they do it, and they keep doing it. I'm looking for both to change.

(12-07-2017 11:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yes, of course. So if we instead start with a three and out without penalties, will that count as being prepared?

No, because the first series is not enough to determine whether we are prepared or not. If we go all four quarters without a sequence like that, then maybe we are prepared. Depending upon what else we do. We'll have an isolated false start of offside penalty during the game. But we should never have that many in a row.

But bottom line: It takes a lot more than the first series to determine whether a team is prepared. One series does not determine preparation. How we play the whole game determines preparation.

Quote:The Bailiff thing is over. Now we are talking about Bloomgren.
I'll tell you what would show me that the team is prepared. Driving for a TD on the first possession, and the next, and the next...building a lead and holding it to the gun for a W.
Hope it happens. I will not be satisfied with a bunch of losses regardless of how many or how few penalties we incur.

Dominating a game is not about preparation. That's about simply having so much more talent than the other guys. Preparation is about winning the games where the talent is equal or you have somewhat less than they do. Preparation is about how we handle the last 30 seconds of the half, or the last 2 minutes of a close game, or how we respond after we fumble or throw an interception, or things like that.

(12-07-2017 11:45 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But I will be reasonably happy even with a bad record *if* it isn't a result of a team looking like a haphazard 5A prep wannabe.

This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.


Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

A good start would be to never ever repeat anything like the 1st series of last season for which Bloomgren had a front row seat.

False start
Delay of game
Rush for -1 yd
False start
Rush for 1 yd
Rush for 2 yds
Punt

3 plays -6 yds TOP 2:19 minutes. Season over for many fans.

The individual plays or games rarely are what concern me. It is the trend. The key for me was this was year 11.

(12-07-2017 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:22 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 10:57 AM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  This. I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

First, how will we know? I am sure we will still have some people jumping offside, dropping passes and incurring penalties, some of the things used to define being prepared and not beating ourselves. I bet there will be times when we enter the last two minutes of a half with less than three TOs.
Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

You don't ever actually make an argument. You just force others to repeat what's already been said and restate the obvious until they're too bored to continue. You want someone to define "well-prepared?" Seriously?

No, it has been defined. I expect the same stuff to continue to happen, though hopefully in lesser measure than before. So if we go 2-11, but are "well prepared", then why are we losing?

If we are well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Preparation is what separates winners from losers.

If we were playing Alabama, Auburn, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Southern Cal, Washington, UTEP, Charlotte, and aTm, then we could be well prepared and go 2-11. But we don't. Against the schedule we play, if we are truly well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Can't happen.

As far as the "Rice beating Rice" stuff, that has become so common that it is almost a joke. Sure, Alabama jumps offsides, and Clemson gets penalties, and Oklahoma drops passes, but they don't "beat themselves" six times in a season. Maybe once, maybe in a bad year twice, but that's about it. There's a difference between so-and-so had a false start 3 weeks ago, and we had multiple ones every week. I don't quite understand why you never seem to have grasped that difference, but I think most people understand it. Nobody plays perfect football. But nobody--or at least nobody who wins consistently--plays as sloppy as we have almost all the time under Bailiff. I've said before, Bailiff's reputation before Rice was that his teams played hard but were sloppy and made a lot of unforced errors. That would pretty much describe his Rice teams.

I'm not going to complain the first time we false start. But if we develop a habit of doing it repeatedly in key situations, yes, I will complain. Because we can't afford to do that.

I caught a brief segment of the Texans game last Sunday. They are probably too beat up to play well right now, but they had a sequence just before the half last Sunday that reminded me of Rice. They had 3rd and 4 around the Tennessee 35. They had 3 consecutive false starts that pushed them back to 3rd and 19 around midfield. They got a pretty heroic pass and catch to get the first down, then promptly threw a pick in the end zone on the next play. I didn't watch any more, reminded me too much of a David Bailiff Rice team. Arguably, with throwing the pick, it didn't really matter. But if they just need a normal play, instead of the heroic play, to get the first down, then maybe they save the heroic play to score the TD. So maybe it did matter. Bottom line, good teams can overcome doing it once or twice. Bad teams can't overcome it when they do it, and they keep doing it. I'm looking for both to change.

No real disagreement. It was said by some that they didn't care how many losses as long as we looked prepared. I think losing is incompatible with being unprepared unless you are overwhelming out-athleted. But since we play a CUSA schedule, and they are all so bad, i cannot see a losing record happening if we are prepared. So if we have a losing record, wouldn't that indicate being unprepared? I just cannot reconcile a losing record with being prepared.

To avoid a losing record, we would have to jump from one win to seven. Not impossible, but i think it should not be the minimum expectation.

In any case, it will be interesting to hear what is said on this board as the season(s) move along. I certainly hope this guy is the savior.

(12-07-2017 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, it will be interesting to hear what is said on this board as the season(s) move along. I certainly hope this guy is the savior.

Your words. Just needs to be noted, because someone criticizes something a year later, I fully expect them to be strawmanned over this.

We hope and expect him to not be an incompetent. That's it for now.

(12-07-2017 12:08 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, it will be interesting to hear what is said on this board as the season(s) move along. I certainly hope this guy is the savior.

Your words. Just needs to be noted, because someone criticizes something a year later, I fully expect them to be strawmanned over this.

We hope and expect him to not be an incompetent. That's it for now.

+1. For the record, nobody characterized Bloomgren as the savior. Wish there was a way to index a post for future reference.

(12-07-2017 12:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we are well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Preparation is what separates winners from losers.
If we were playing Alabama, Auburn, Miami, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Penn State, Southern Cal, Washington, UTEP, Charlotte, and aTm, then we could be well prepared and go 2-11. But we don't. Against the schedule we play, if we are truly well prepared, we won't go 2-11. Can't happen.
As far as the "Rice beating Rice" stuff, that has become so common that it is almost a joke. Sure, Alabama jumps offsides, and Clemson gets penalties, and Oklahoma drops passes, but they don't "beat themselves" six times in a season. Maybe once, maybe in a bad year twice, but that's about it. There's a difference between so-and-so had a false start 3 weeks ago, and we had multiple ones every week. I don't quite understand why you never seem to have grasped that difference, but I think most people understand it. Nobody plays perfect football. But nobody--or at least nobody who wins consistently--plays as sloppy as we have almost all the time under Bailiff. I've said before, Bailiff's reputation before Rice was that his teams played hard but were sloppy and made a lot of unforced errors. That would pretty much describe his Rice teams.
I'm not going to complain the first time we false start. But if we develop a habit of doing it repeatedly in key situations, yes, I will complain. Because we can't afford to do that.
I caught a brief segment of the Texans game last Sunday. They are probably too beat up to play well right now, but they had a sequence just before the half last Sunday that reminded me of Rice. They had 3rd and 4 around the Tennessee 35. They had 3 consecutive false starts that pushed them back to 3rd and 19 around midfield. They got a pretty heroic pass and catch to get the first down, then promptly threw a pick in the end zone on the next play. I didn't watch any more, reminded me too much of a David Bailiff Rice team. Arguably, with throwing the pick, it didn't really matter. But if they just need a normal play, instead of the heroic play, to get the first down, then maybe they save the heroic play to score the TD. So maybe it did matter. Bottom line, good teams can overcome doing it once or twice. Bad teams can't overcome it when they do it, and they keep doing it. I'm looking for both to change.

No real disagreement. It was said by some that they didn't care how many losses as long as we looked prepared. I think losing is incompatible with being unprepared unless you are overwhelming out-athleted. But since we play a CUSA schedule, and they are all so bad, i cannot see a losing record happening if we are prepared. So if we have a losing record, wouldn't that indicate being unprepared? I just cannot reconcile a losing record with being prepared.
To avoid a losing record, we would have to jump from one win to seven. Not impossible, but i think it should not be the minimum expectation.
In any case, it will be interesting to hear what is said on this board as the season(s) move along. I certainly hope this guy is the savior.

I have no expectations that this guy, or any other guy, is a savior. We only had one of them, and we killed him 2000 years ago.

What I expect is a competent football coach. I have this belief, perhaps unwarranted, that this team way underperformed last year because it was poorly prepared. I sort of get a sense that Bloomgren may feel a little bit the same way, which might have caused him to want the job. And remember, he has scouted us very closely for two years, so he comes in with some familiarity of what he has.

I believe that, with competent preparation, there is enough talent here to win 6-7 games, and 8 would not surprise me, against the schedule we play. I don't expect to see a team that makes zero mistakes. I do expect to see a team that does not repeatedly shoot itself in the foot. I expect the days of "Rice beating Rice" to end. Other people may beat us, and some probably will, because lots of teams have more talent. But I don't expect to see Rice to be beating Rice consistently.

(12-07-2017 10:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Current rankings (Massey Composite / Sagarin) for the teams on next year's schedule:
20/18 - LSU
31/29 - Wake Forest
47/58 - UH
65/97 - North Texas
77/111 - FIU
82/103 - So. Miss
90/101 - LaTech
91/119 - UAB
95/114 - UTSA
112/146 - ODU
120/153 - Hawaii
130/200 - UTEP
NR/207 - PVA&M

I know Rice was terrible this year, but I don't find it inconceivable (I find it conceivable?) that Rice could win 6+ games with that schedule. (reminder that Massey Composite only ranks FBS teams, Sagarin combines FBS & FCS).

I'd like for us to be top 75 this coming year and top 50 next

That has us winning a WHOLE lot of games

I'd take top 85 this year and top 65 next.

That still has us winning a WHOLE lot of games

Focus on the former... being 'good'... and the latter will take care of itself.

(12-07-2017 12:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Focus on the former... being 'good'... and the latter will take care of itself.

Exactly.

(12-07-2017 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:16 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Second, if we are 'well prepared' and we don't beat ourselves, then why are we losing?

Really?

Yeah, really.

I was responding to this and others like it. "I don't care much about the win-loss record next year. I just want to see a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself."

If we are well prepared and don't beat ourselves, then why would we have a losing record? Especially if the reason we have been losing is that we are not well prepared and we beat ourselves.

Unless you think we just don't have the athletes to compete in CUSA with a well prepared team that doesn't beat itself.

If we are out personelled, we could very well be prepared, not beat ourselves, and lose.

(12-07-2017 11:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  let me put this another way:

if we lose to UNT or UTSA 38-14, how many posters can we expect here to say, "But at least we were well prepared"?

The vast majority of games Rice engaged in were not games where it was a *game* until the end (i.e. a winning game). There were only 2 or 3 games (the UTEP win included) in which we had not lost in the first quarter. Losing games in the first quarter to non- Top 25 teams would be a hallmark of not being prepared.

The top 25 team we played (and lost in the quarter to) was characterized by the infamous first two offensive series. Again, a hallmark of not being prepared.

(12-07-2017 11:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A well-prepared team will not go 2-11 against next year's schedule. "Well-prepared" and "2-11" are mutually exclusive in this instance.

Fair enough point. The first 3 or 4 games are going to be tough, though.

If he gets a higher salary and a better budget than his predecessor, he better win big every year (bowl game), or expect to get slammed here every day.

(12-07-2017 01:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A well-prepared team will not go 2-11 against next year's schedule. "Well-prepared" and "2-11" are mutually exclusive in this instance.

Fair enough point. The first 3 or 4 games are going to be tough, though.

No question, but if we can at least demonstrate some level of competitiveness in those first 4 games, the final 9 games are definitely winnable.

(12-07-2017 01:12 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:38 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A well-prepared team will not go 2-11 against next year's schedule. "Well-prepared" and "2-11" are mutually exclusive in this instance.

Fair enough point. The first 3 or 4 games are going to be tough, though.

No question, but if we can at least demonstrate some level of competitiveness in those first 4 games, the final 9 games are definitely winnable.

Except for the one in Baton Rouge.

To be honest, I’ll have probably enjoyed that “game day experience” enough that I won’t care.