(09-30-2018 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I will make my evaluation after 3 years.

Looking back, Watson and Berndt didn't last 3 years. After 3 years I liked Fred and liked Ken. In 3 years Bailiff went 3-9, 10-3, and 2-10. I think the die was pretty well cast. Bailiff could have good years, but couldn't sustain.

I expect a bad first year. Of those listed, Ken was the only one who arguably had a good first season. The book on Bloomgren will be written based on how much improvement is shown in years 2 and 3. With that in mind, I'd be going deep into the bench to start giving people experience.

Watson must have left after two because he knew his best talent was gone.

(09-30-2018 08:36 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The 2012-2014 run came exactly at the time that CUSA fell apart and absorbed the Sun belt. Prior to this, with UH, UCF, ECU, Tulsa etc. CUSA was a decent G5, which means we recruited at the lower half of a decent spectrum. When the conference collapsed, we still had lower half of decent spectrum recruits against a really bad conference.
Over time, our recruiting normalized to really bad in a really bad conference, and here we are. This is how we had 2012-2014 without a single decent win and being ranked in the bottom half at peak.
The EZF wasnt going to save us, nor were bowls. Relying on these ensured we remained mired in this death spiral of ever increasing speed.
We were the quintessential paper tiger. The problem wasn't the construction material choice though, it was the fact that we fooled ourselves in thinking paper can withstand the fire we play with in Division 1 and the decisions we made with that false belief.

Winning CUSA may very well make us no more than a paper tiger. But not winning CUSA makes us something very much less than even that. A paper mouse? And we haven't even been winning CUSA. Being in CUSA shouldn't penalize us in recruiting versus other CUSA members, because they have the same problem we do. I actually think we could come up with an attractive recruiting value proposition if we managed things right.

But the bottom line is that until we get to where dominate CUSA, none of the other stuff matters.

Just a few random thoughts.

The cupboard isn't as bare as some of you think.

This is all to be expected. Rice is trying to follow the Stanford way. They are sticking to the plan. The conundrum is the plan. Everyone seems to think a complete overhaul is what is needed and an influx of talent. That pretty much encapsulates the current philosophy of football. Talent, talent, talent and competent coaching.

Stanford has had it's issues. I had stated earlier that Stanford has had 9 10+ win seasons. 6 have come after 1990. And 5 after 2000. Walsh had 1, Willingham had 1, Harbaugh had 1 and Shaw has 4. Before Harbaugh, Stanford had Teevins and Harris who won 3 games in 2 years and included a loss to 1AA UC Davis. So, Bloom came in under Shaw and the turnaround had already happened. The talent had been upgraded and was maintaining under Shaw. Heck, in 1971, Stanford was the defending Rose Bowl and Pac 8 champion. They won the PAC 8 again and would go on to upset Michigan in the Rose Bowl. In their next to last game, they lost to San Jose State. They were mediocre after the 72 Rose Bowl. They hired an alum in the late 70s and they got Elway. In the 70s, they had a streak of 5 QBs that went to the NFL. In fact, one week in the 80's, 6 former Stanford QBs started. Anyway, Stanford failed to make a bowl game during Elway's years so they fire their alumni coach (bad for me) and hired Elway's dad. They continued with mediocrity. They cycled through coaches and it hit bottom with Teevins and Harris. So, the Stanford braintrust decided to recruit more physical players and brought in Harbaugh who brought in Shaw. Even in Harbaugh's first year, Stanford was able to beat USC as a 40+ point underdog. Granted they only won 4 games but that was with diminished talent and a 1-10 season the previous year. So, in Harbaugh's first year with crappy talent off a 1-10 season they win 4 games including a road win in the Coliseum as a HUGE underdog.

So, try as Rice might to emulate Stanford, it isn't a perfect recreation of the Stanford rebuild. You have a couple of tangential Stanford associates to the Stanford rebuild implementing the Stanford model for success. To me, this is a major consideration that Rice decision makers may have overlooked or minimized.

The choice to stick with a rebuild plan can be a blessing and a curse. If it works out in the end, it is a blessing. If it doesn't, it is a curse. Only time will tell.

And by the way, it isn't schemes that will work. It is creating situations to augment the skills you do have. The problem with stats is that they only measure what happened. They can't measure what is possible. Even with the parameters that Rice currently has, there are other ways to teach football to create performance. But, Rice needs to follow the Stanford blueprint.

(09-30-2018 11:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2018 08:36 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The 2012-2014 run came exactly at the time that CUSA fell apart and absorbed the Sun belt. Prior to this, with UH, UCF, ECU, Tulsa etc. CUSA was a decent G5, which means we recruited at the lower half of a decent spectrum. When the conference collapsed, we still had lower half of decent spectrum recruits against a really bad conference.
Over time, our recruiting normalized to really bad in a really bad conference, and here we are. This is how we had 2012-2014 without a single decent win and being ranked in the bottom half at peak.
The EZF wasnt going to save us, nor were bowls. Relying on these ensured we remained mired in this death spiral of ever increasing speed.
We were the quintessential paper tiger. The problem wasn't the construction material choice though, it was the fact that we fooled ourselves in thinking paper can withstand the fire we play with in Division 1 and the decisions we made with that false belief.

Winning CUSA may very well make us no more than a paper tiger. But not winning CUSA makes us something very much less than even that. A paper mouse? And we haven't even been winning CUSA. Being in CUSA shouldn't penalize us in recruiting versus other CUSA members, because they have the same problem we do. I actually think we could come up with an attractive recruiting value proposition if we managed things right.

But the bottom line is that until we get to where dominate CUSA, none of the other stuff matters.

Of course - winning CUSA is better than not winning it. My point was that

1. Our last round of winning CUSA was a perfect storm of circumstances and is highly unlikely to be repeated barring significant changes to recruiting etc. Unless CUSA decides to merge with FCS, absent a significant change in recruiting, we will remain at the bottom end of the spectrum.

2. It does not penalize us relative to other CUSA members. The issue is we are already at the bottom of the spectrum in a bottom conference, so its a compounded impact.

3. I am still not convinced that the power structures in place the last time we went down the blindly-handing-out-extensions train are gone. If the leadership was incapable of seeing a paper tiger for what it is (read: flimsy and flammable), and fought tooth and nail to keep the last regime in place years after their expiration date, why do we think they suddenly change their tune?

As demonstrated with football, baseball, MBB, WBB .... Rice doesn't know what to do except knee jerk react when they hit rock bottom. With that sort of "leadership" in place, how do we expect a culture of success to develop? This goes long past Bloom and even Karlgaard, IMO - why do we make it a point to start from a hole it is near impossible to climb out?

(10-01-2018 12:36 AM)ruowls Wrote:  . But, Rice needs to follow the Stanford blueprint.

I think you mean to say Rice FEELS THE NEED TO follow the blueprint?

My sarcasm meter is going off, but not everyone has that

https://swcroundup.com/news/2018/9/30/qb...hru-week-5
QB grades

(10-01-2018 11:16 AM)Hank16 Wrote:  https://swcroundup.com/news/2018/9/30/qb...hru-week-5
QB grades

Other than SMU, the other QBs below us (UTEP, UTSA and Tx. State) are all fellow residents of the Massey Bottom 10.

UTSA - 122
Rice - 128
Tx. State - 129
UTEP - 130 (last)