"We always talk about intellectual brutality. I like to form my game around that. You think of brutality where you're out of control at all moments and you're just going crazy. But I add the intellectual part because you're under control, you know what's going on and you know what's going to happen next. You just bring that physicality to it, and it's game over,"

I love this quote!!

Not a great fan of that term either but football is a violent game, there is no getting around that. Hopefully we back it up with some results (at least in staying relatively healthy).

In terms of Bloomgren's physical stature, it's a non-issue to me. But I am curious because I'm not sure of the answer - did he actually play football at Florida State or was he a regular student there who got into coaching as an undergraduate? His bio doesn't really make that clear. We might need Mike to do the research to see if he was originally on the roster for Bobby Bowden in the late 1990's I guess.

(07-29-2018 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a great fan of that term either but football is a violent game, there is no getting around that. Hopefully we back it up with some results (at least in staying relatively healthy).

In terms of Bloomgren's physical stature, it's a non-issue to me. But I am curious because I'm not sure of the answer - did he actually play football at Florida State or was he a regular student there who got into coaching as an undergraduate? His bio doesn't really make that clear. We might need Mike to do the research to see if he was originally on the roster for Bobby Bowden in the late 1990's I guess.

I don't believe he ever played at FSU (unless he was a walk on who never played during his Freshman and Sophomore seasons). Rather, he was a undergraduate assistant for Bobby Bowden in 1997 and '98, before graduating in '99, as reported in this article from 2017...

http://gridironnow.com/florida-state-off...f-changes/

Quote:I have heard Mike Bloomgren, the offensive coordinator/offensive line coach at Stanford, will be a leading candidate to replace Trickett. Bloomgren is from Tallahassee, he’s an FSU grad (in 1999) and he’s coached a high-level offense and running game at Stanford for seven seasons. His coaching career began an undergraduate assistant for Bobby Bowden in 1997 and ’98.

FSU finished in the Top 4 in the rankings, but no national title, in each of his 4 years on campus.

Whatever. He is our coach, and I don’t care if our philosophy is “intellectual brutality” or what, just show me wins. I don’ even care if they are pretty, or crisp, or whatever adjective you like, I just want wins. Getting to be time to put up.

(07-29-2018 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Whatever. He is our coach, and I don’t care if our philosophy is “intellectual brutality” or what, just show me wins. I don’ even care if they are pretty, or crisp, or whatever adjective you like, I just want wins. Getting to be time to put up.

You should care. Changing the culture is the #1 priority in turning the program around.

(07-29-2018 10:07 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Whatever. He is our coach, and I don’t care if our philosophy is “intellectual brutality” or what, just show me wins. I don’ even care if they are pretty, or crisp, or whatever adjective you like, I just want wins. Getting to be time to put up.

You should care. Changing the culture is the #1 priority in turning the program around.

Wins is what is important. I don’t care about cultured losers. But my statement was incomplete. I want wins, without crossing the ethical and legal lines that could bring us probation. If we false start 5 times in the first three plays, and win, I am happier than if we come out looking sharp and lose.If they repeat that 13 Times, I am delirious with joy.

(07-29-2018 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not a great fan of that term either but football is a violent game, there is no getting around that. Hopefully we back it up with some results (at least in staying relatively healthy).

In terms of Bloomgren's physical stature, it's a non-issue to me. But I am curious because I'm not sure of the answer - did he actually play football at Florida State or was he a regular student there who got into coaching as an undergraduate? His bio doesn't really make that clear. We might need Mike to do the research to see if he was originally on the roster for Bobby Bowden in the late 1990's I guess.

Bloomgren played at Culver-Stockton College (never heard of it? me neither; it's "a private, residential, four-year, liberal arts college in Canton, Missouri") before transferring to Florida State.

(07-29-2018 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:07 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Whatever. He is our coach, and I don’t care if our philosophy is “intellectual brutality” or what, just show me wins. I don’ even care if they are pretty, or crisp, or whatever adjective you like, I just want wins. Getting to be time to put up.

You should care. Changing the culture is the #1 priority in turning the program around.

Wins is what is important. I don’t care about cultured losers. But my statement was incomplete. I want wins, without crossing the ethical and legal lines that could bring us probation. If we false start 5 times in the first three plays, and win, I am happier than if we come out looking sharp and lose.If they repeat that 13 Times, I am delirious with joy.

That's like saying if we replace all the oxygen in the air with Argon and all survive then <insert statement here> . Rice cannot be sloppy and win against anyone with a pulse. Rice beating itself with penalties and losing arent mutually exclusive things.

Constantly repeating these sorts of non sequiturs is benefit free.

Rice football fans have experienced plenty of brutality of results in the past 2 years...I'm all for seeing that we are the ones administering the brutality whether it is intellectual or otherwise (at least while on the gridiron).

Also, not every little utterance or marketing phrase has to be taken to a level of literalism typically reserved for Southern Baptist sermons.

(07-29-2018 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wins is what is important. I don’t care about cultured losers. But my statement was incomplete. I want wins, without crossing the ethical and legal lines that could bring us probation. If we false start 5 times in the first three plays, and win, I am happier than if we come out looking sharp and lose. If they repeat that 13 Times, I am delirious with joy.

The logical fallacy is that the team with 5 false starts in the first 3 plays is far more likely to lose than win, and the team that sustains sharpness throughout the game is far more likely to win. I've said that what I want to see is subjective improvement--looking sharp and well-organized. If that happens, I will accept whatever the results. But I think those results would be positive.

Of course I assume you are talking about the entire game. If we came out and had 5 false starts in the first 3 plays, but played crisp and sharp and well-organized the rest of the way, that is probably more likely to produce a win than looking sharp and aggressive at the start but quickly regressing to what we have seen in the last few years.

I get your point, but teams that make as many errors in the first few plays as we did in Sydney last year tend to end up with scoreboards that look like that one did.

(07-29-2018 07:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 10:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Wins is what is important. I don’t care about cultured losers. But my statement was incomplete. I want wins, without crossing the ethical and legal lines that could bring us probation. If we false start 5 times in the first three plays, and win, I am happier than if we come out looking sharp and lose. If they repeat that 13 Times, I am delirious with joy.

The logical fallacy is that the team with 5 false starts in the first 3 plays is far more likely to lose than win, and the team that sustains sharpness throughout the game is far more likely to win. I've said that what I want to see is subjective improvement--looking sharp and well-organized. If that happens, I will accept whatever the results. But I think those results would be positive.

Of course I assume you are talking about the entire game. If we came out and had 5 false starts in the first 3 plays, but played crisp and sharp and well-organized the rest of the way, that is probably more likely to produce a win than looking sharp and aggressive at the start but quickly regressing to what we have seen in the last few years.

I get your point, but teams that make as many errors in the first few plays as we did in Sydney last year tend to end up with scoreboards that look like that one did.

If you are talking probability, then yes, the team that starts well is more likely to win than the team that starts poorly. The team that ends well is probably even more likely. The one that plays well the entire game, even more.

But so what? At the end of the day, it is the scoreboard that everybody looks to, not the stat sheet or the judges' scores for artistic impression. I just don't want to hear any BS about how we looked so good losing by 24. Whether we have 5 false starts in the first three plays or zero for the game makes no difference if we lose.

Rice > opponent is all I care about. Style points are secondary to scoreboard points.

(07-29-2018 12:18 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 10:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 06:38 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Just saying the poster is not that flattering to Coach Bloom.

(07-28-2018 03:59 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 03:45 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Coach Bloom looks kinda chubby?. Is he eating too much Bar B Que since coming to Texas?

And this matters why?

Again.. and?

More interested in performance, results and behavior than anything else. I couldn't care less whether our coach looked like Brad Pitt or the exact opposite - as long as the results and actions are where we need them to be.

This was intended to make fun of OldOwl for being weirdly preoccupied with the coach's weight -- Bailiff's face expression here (to my eye) was "WTF?"

(07-29-2018 10:50 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 12:18 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 10:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 06:38 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Just saying the poster is not that flattering to Coach Bloom.

(07-28-2018 03:59 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

And this matters why?

Again.. and?

More interested in performance, results and behavior than anything else. I couldn't care less whether our coach looked like Brad Pitt or the exact opposite - as long as the results and actions are where we need them to be.

This was intended to make fun of OldOwl for being weirdly preoccupied with the couch's weight -- Bailiff's face expression here (to my eye) was "WTF?"

FIFY. That and him needing to loose that weight.

(07-29-2018 10:50 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(07-29-2018 12:18 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 10:01 PM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 06:38 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Just saying the poster is not that flattering to Coach Bloom.

(07-28-2018 03:59 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

And this matters why?

Again.. and?

More interested in performance, results and behavior than anything else. I couldn't care less whether our coach looked like Brad Pitt or the exact opposite - as long as the results and actions are where we need them to be.

This was intended to make fun of OldOwl for being weirdly preoccupied with the coach's weight -- Bailiff's face expression here (to my eye) was "WTF?"

The was a year, probably seven or eight years back, when the problem du jour of Bailiff was that he was fat and a bad role model.

I don't care if a coach is fat or skinny, tall or short, ugly or good looking, if he can carry Rice to victories.

Over the years, bailiff had the following problems
1. he didn't win enough
2. he didn't win consistantly
3. he didn't win the big ones.

What word is common to all three complaints? WIN. So I just want to see wins. I want to see a lot of them, and I want to see more next year, and even more the year after.

Put another way, I don't want to see bricks, I want to see buildings.

Just win, baby. (without cheating, of course).

OO, Bailiff did not do those things, IMO, because he did not have an approach that could produce those results, particularly given Rice’s self-imposed limitations. The only philosophy that I could ever discern was simply to keep plugging square pegs into round holes until we could recruit well enough that they fit. I don’t think that can work given Rice’s inherent recruiting limitations.

Bailiff’s reputation at Texas State was that his teams played hard but sloppy. I don’t think that can work st Rice. I think the model for Rice has to be that you may have a slight edge in talent, but we are going to recruit to narrow that gap and then to out-scheme and out-work and out-execute you to overcome that gap.

I’m not sure whether Bloomgren’s approach can work at Rice, but at least I know what his approach is. And he has been a big part of making it work at Stanford, so maybe he knows how to make it work here.

(07-30-2018 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OO, Bailiff did not do those things, IMO, because he did not have an approach that could produce those results, particularly given Rice’s self-imposed limitations. The only philosophy that I could ever discern was simply to keep plugging square pegs into round holes until we could recruit well enough that they fit. I don’t think that can work given Rice’s inherent recruiting limitations.

Bailiff’s reputation at Texas State was that his teams played hard but sloppy. I don’t think that can work st Rice. I think the model for Rice has to be that you may have a slight edge in talent, but we are going to recruit to narrow that gap and then to out-scheme and out-work and out-execute you to overcome that gap.

I’m not sure whether Bloomgren’s approach can work at Rice, but at least I know what his approach is. And he has been a big part of making it work at Stanford, so maybe he knows how to make it work here.

I don't care WHY he didn't do those things. I just want somebody who WILL do those things. I will give credit AFTER they are done; Until then all we can do is hope that those things will get done.

I like what I hear about Bloomgren, and hope that he will be our Moses and lead us out of the wilderness. But until I see the promised land, it is just hope.

We are not so different, you and I. I just have a little more "show me" at this point. I know it won't happen all at once, but that doesn't mean I have to sit back and say that wins over PVAM and UTEP and nobody else bode well for the program because the line blocked well and had only two false starts.

Recruiting, X's and O's, attitude - all usually parts of a winning program. But the most distinctive feature of a winning program is WINS.

(07-30-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OO, Bailiff did not do those things, IMO, because he did not have an approach that could produce those results, particularly given Rice’s self-imposed limitations. The only philosophy that I could ever discern was simply to keep plugging square pegs into round holes until we could recruit well enough that they fit. I don’t think that can work given Rice’s inherent recruiting limitations.
Bailiff’s reputation at Texas State was that his teams played hard but sloppy. I don’t think that can work st Rice. I think the model for Rice has to be that you may have a slight edge in talent, but we are going to recruit to narrow that gap and then to out-scheme and out-work and out-execute you to overcome that gap.
I’m not sure whether Bloomgren’s approach can work at Rice, but at least I know what his approach is. And he has been a big part of making it work at Stanford, so maybe he knows how to make it work here.

I don't care WHY he didn't do those things. I just want somebody who WILL do those things. I will give credit AFTER they are done; Until then all we can do is hope that those things will get done.
I like what I hear about Bloomgren, and hope that he will be our Moses and lead us out of the wilderness. But until I see the promised land, it is just hope.
We are not so different, you and I. I just have a little more "show me" at this point. I know it won't happen all at once, but that doesn't mean I have to sit back and say that wins over PVAM and UTEP and nobody else bode well for the program because the line blocked well and had only two false starts.
Recruiting, X's and O's, attitude - all usually parts of a winning program. But the most distinctive feature of a winning program is WINS.

I think the difference between us is that I see more correlation between some process things and the results that follow than you seem to. Just win, baby, is fine, as long as you do it ethically and legally, but just winning flows from doing certain things well. I want to see a focused, disciplined, and solidly executing team. I don't put it in terms of wins, because I think wins will necessarily follow if we get that. And I think the Bailiff experience would go to show that Rice can't win consistently without that. Yes, we can catch the occasional lightning bolt in a jar, like 2008 and 2013. But once every five years won't get it done, particularly when the other years look like 2007, 2009-2011, and 2015-2017.

I know you like to point out false starts and the like from teams like Alabama and TCU and I guess I could summarize your position as you'd rather see wins like Alabama and TCU rather than eliminating false starts. So would I. But the difference is that I don't think Rice CAN win without eliminating silly mistakes. Alabama can and occasionally does. But Alabama has linebackers who are 6-5, 260, and run 4.5s. We don't, and we are not going to. It has to be a different approach. Whether Bloomgren has that approach or not, I don't know. Like you, I hope he does, and the early indicators are positive. But we won't really know until we see what happens on the field.

(07-30-2018 09:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 08:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OO, Bailiff did not do those things, IMO, because he did not have an approach that could produce those results, particularly given Rice’s self-imposed limitations. The only philosophy that I could ever discern was simply to keep plugging square pegs into round holes until we could recruit well enough that they fit. I don’t think that can work given Rice’s inherent recruiting limitations.
Bailiff’s reputation at Texas State was that his teams played hard but sloppy. I don’t think that can work st Rice. I think the model for Rice has to be that you may have a slight edge in talent, but we are going to recruit to narrow that gap and then to out-scheme and out-work and out-execute you to overcome that gap.
I’m not sure whether Bloomgren’s approach can work at Rice, but at least I know what his approach is. And he has been a big part of making it work at Stanford, so maybe he knows how to make it work here.

I don't care WHY he didn't do those things. I just want somebody who WILL do those things. I will give credit AFTER they are done; Until then all we can do is hope that those things will get done.
I like what I hear about Bloomgren, and hope that he will be our Moses and lead us out of the wilderness. But until I see the promised land, it is just hope.
We are not so different, you and I. I just have a little more "show me" at this point. I know it won't happen all at once, but that doesn't mean I have to sit back and say that wins over PVAM and UTEP and nobody else bode well for the program because the line blocked well and had only two false starts.
Recruiting, X's and O's, attitude - all usually parts of a winning program. But the most distinctive feature of a winning program is WINS.

I think the difference between us is that I see more correlation between some process things and the results that follow than you seem to. Just win, baby, is fine, as long as you do it ethically and legally, but just winning flows from doing certain things well. I want to see a focused, disciplined, and solidly executing team. I don't put it in terms of wins, because I think wins will necessarily follow if we get that. And I think the Bailiff experience would go to show that Rice can't win consistently without that. Yes, we can catch the occasional lightning bolt in a jar, like 2008 and 2013. But once every five years won't get it done, particularly when the other years look like 2007, 2009-2011, and 2015-2017.

I know you like to point out false starts and the like from teams like Alabama and TCU and I guess I could summarize your position as you'd rather see wins like Alabama and TCU rather than eliminating false starts. So would I. But the difference is that I don't think Rice CAN win without eliminating silly mistakes. Alabama can and occasionally does. But Alabama has linebackers who are 6-5, 260, and run 4.5s. We don't, and we are not going to. It has to be a different approach. Whether Bloomgren has that approach or not, I don't know. Like you, I hope he does, and the early indicators are positive. But we won't really know until we see what happens on the field.

i point out false starts because that has been a particular topic of conversation the last few years, being used as an indication being unprepared or poorly coached. But it could as easily be dropped passes or missed assignments or time outs or any of the myriad other things that have been discussed here.

Here it is in black and white. If we have zero false starts, zero missed assignments, zero dropped passes, zero penalties, zero all the bad things, and yet still lose, I will not be happy. Some people here might be. Your point about that loss being unlikely (but not impossible) is valid, ut sometimes you play well and still lose, and other times you play badly and still win. If I have to choose one stat to be make me happy, it will be having more points on the scoreboard than the opponent when the clock goes to zero in the fourth quarter. If I get that one, I don't care much about the rest.


I certainly hope nobody on the sideline is saying the important thing is to look good. Those are steps to a goal, but the goal is winning.

(07-30-2018 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I point out false starts because that has been a particular topic of conversation the last few years, being used as an indication being unprepared or poorly coached. But it could as easily be dropped passes or missed assignments or time outs or any of the myriad other things that have been discussed here.
Here it is in black and white. If we have zero false starts, zero missed assignments, zero dropped passes, zero penalties, zero all the bad things, and yet still lose, I will not be happy. Some people here might be. Your point about that loss being unlikely (but not impossible) is valid, ut sometimes you play well and still lose, and other times you play badly and still win. If I have to choose one stat to be make me happy, it will be having more points on the scoreboard than the opponent when the clock goes to zero in the fourth quarter. If I get that one, I don't care much about the rest.
I certainly hope nobody on the sideline is saying the important thing is to look good. Those are steps to a goal, but the goal is winning.

If we have zero false starts, zero missed assignments, zero dropped passes, zero penalties, zero turnovers, and still lose, then we just got very badly out-athleted by a helluva football team. If we do those things, we won't lose often. Actually if we did all those things, we could probably beat either of the two teams that played for the national championship, or the one (UCF) that got left out. One thing for sure, we would not lose often, if at all, doing that.

I want to see those things eliminated, not for the sake of looking good, but because eliminating those things is how you win. Particularly at Rice, which is not often going to have the luxury of out-athleting people.

That's where we differ. You seem to think, or at least you postulate, as if it were an either/or proposition--would you rather see us look good or win? My point is that the things you see as looking good are the ways to win. Or in the Bailiff case, repeated failure to do those things caused repeated losing.

(07-30-2018 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I point out false starts because that has been a particular topic of conversation the last few years, being used as an indication being unprepared or poorly coached. But it could as easily be dropped passes or missed assignments or time outs or any of the myriad other things that have been discussed here.
Here it is in black and white. If we have zero false starts, zero missed assignments, zero dropped passes, zero penalties, zero all the bad things, and yet still lose, I will not be happy. Some people here might be. Your point about that loss being unlikely (but not impossible) is valid, ut sometimes you play well and still lose, and other times you play badly and still win. If I have to choose one stat to be make me happy, it will be having more points on the scoreboard than the opponent when the clock goes to zero in the fourth quarter. If I get that one, I don't care much about the rest.
I certainly hope nobody on the sideline is saying the important thing is to look good. Those are steps to a goal, but the goal is winning.

If we have zero false starts, zero missed assignments, zero dropped passes, zero penalties, zero turnovers, and still lose, then we just got very badly out-athleted by a helluva football team. If we do those things, we won't lose often. Actually if we did all those things, we could probably beat either of the two teams that played for the national championship, or the one (UCF) that got left out. One thing for sure, we would not lose often, if at all, doing that.

I want to see those things eliminated, not for the sake of looking good, but because eliminating those things is how you win. Particularly at Rice, which is not often going to have the luxury of out-athleting people.

That's where we differ. You seem to think, or at least you postulate, as if it were an either/or proposition--would you rather see us look good or win? My point is that the things you see as looking good are the ways to win. Or in the Bailiff case, repeated failure to do those things caused repeated losing.

I am just saying the cake is more important that the ingredients. You are saying good ingredients usually produce good cakes. I agree, but so what? I am saying if the cake is good (a win), I don't need a report on the ingredients, and if the cake is bad (a loss), I will not be mollified by a report that the eggs were very fresh.