(12-15-2018 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate that this has become about UTSA. They are just a plug in as a generic team that isn't top 25. We could as easily speak of UNT or ULL or ODU.

I want wins. I want wins against the best teams on our schedule, and I want wins against the worst. Yes, I will be excited if we play well against a Top25 team, even if we lose, because it indicates future WINS. I just don't think looking good in losses should be a goal. It will not be a goal for me. The rest of you can revel in 10 point losses all you want.

A superb example of the strawman argument.

(12-15-2018 05:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate that this has become about UTSA. They are just a plug in as a generic team that isn't top 25. We could as easily speak of UNT or ULL or ODU.

I want wins. I want wins against the best teams on our schedule, and I want wins against the worst. Yes, I will be excited if we play well against a Top25 team, even if we lose, because it indicates future WINS. I just don't think looking good in losses should be a goal. It will not be a goal for me. The rest of you can revel in 10 point losses all you want.

A superb example of the strawman argument.

I want wins. Argue with that if you want. Lots of people arguing. I don't what the alternative to wins would be that would be attractive.

But we have no chance of beating Texas, LSU or A&M if we do not play them. The problem with playing G5 or below is that it does not much matter to our fans if we win. We just hope not to lose.

(12-15-2018 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 05:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate that this has become about UTSA. They are just a plug in as a generic team that isn't top 25. We could as easily speak of UNT or ULL or ODU.

I want wins. I want wins against the best teams on our schedule, and I want wins against the worst. Yes, I will be excited if we play well against a Top25 team, even if we lose, because it indicates future WINS. I just don't think looking good in losses should be a goal. It will not be a goal for me. The rest of you can revel in 10 point losses all you want.

A superb example of the strawman argument.

I want wins. Argue with that if you want. Lots of people arguing. I don't what the alternative to wins would be that would be attractive.

+1

(12-17-2018 11:18 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 05:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 05:08 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 04:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I hate that this has become about UTSA. They are just a plug in as a generic team that isn't top 25. We could as easily speak of UNT or ULL or ODU.

I want wins. I want wins against the best teams on our schedule, and I want wins against the worst. Yes, I will be excited if we play well against a Top25 team, even if we lose, because it indicates future WINS. I just don't think looking good in losses should be a goal. It will not be a goal for me. The rest of you can revel in 10 point losses all you want.

A superb example of the strawman argument.

I want wins. Argue with that if you want. Lots of people arguing. I don't what the alternative to wins would be that would be attractive.

+1

An amazing, never been seen before opinion.

We all salute OO for showing us heathens that we must support wins. Our uneducated selves had no idea previously.

(12-17-2018 11:24 PM)Antarius Wrote:  An amazing, never been seen before opinion.

We all salute OO for showing us heathens that we must support wins. Our uneducated selves had no idea previously.

No wonder we have a problem with our football program. One guy has a goal of being just below the top 25. Another would rather lose to a top team in a close game than win against a conference opponent. Others just want to look good executing.

I say just win. win against the worst team on our schedule. Win against the best one. Win the one we are playing next. Win today. Win ugly, win pretty, win routs, win close ones.

Win, enough and consistently, and the good things will come. Sure, winning 10 by itself one year is not enough. Been there, done that, no joy. We need to do it consistently. Winning 10 is not enough. We need to win more. And losing to LSU or Notre Dame by 10 is surely not going to help us much, if at all. Been there, done that. After a week, it is just another loss. People give the team's record as x wins and Y losses. I have never seen any record listed as x wins, y losses, of which z were close games again top opponents. But it seems that is the preference of some.

Some people point to TCU as a model. Well, TCU didn't care who they played as much as they cared about beating them. Quick, who did TCU lose to that gave the program a boost? They won, and they won more, and they won even more.

Winning gets publicity and recruits. It has to be sustained. One special win here and there won't do the trick. One special loss here and there for sure won't.

So win. Then win more. Then win the the big ones. There is a pattern there for those who care to look.

The road back starts with winning. Every step of the way relies on winning. It boggles the mind that some denigrate winning. If not to win, why play?

You guys can construct any model you want of how to get respect and a P5 invite through not winning. I will just root for my team to win. Every game. Every year. Not to look good., although that would be a welcome bonus, but to win. Then win again, and win more. Sadly, at Rice, that may put me in a minority.

Yes, it is simple, a no brainer. makes me wonder why so many of Rice's big brains are in disagreement.

As I said before, if you think there is something better than winning, tell us. If there is something you want from Bloomgren that is better than winning, let's hear it.

(12-18-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No wonder we have a problem with our football program. One guy has a goal of being just below the top 25. Another would rather lose to a top team in a close game than win against a conference opponent. Others just want to look good executing.
I say just win. win against the worst team on our schedule. Win against the best one. Win the one we are playing next. Win today. Win ugly, win pretty, win routs, win close ones.
Win, enough and consistently, and the good things will come. Sure, winning 10 by itself one year is not enough. Been there, done that, no joy. We need to do it consistently. Winning 10 is not enough. We need to win more. And losing to LSU or Notre Dame by 10 is surely not going to help us much, if at all. Been there, done that. After a week, it is just another loss. People give the team's record as x wins and Y losses. I have never seen any record listed as x wins, y losses, of which z were close games again top opponents. But it seems that is the preference of some.
Some people point to TCU as a model. Well, TCU didn't care who they played as much as they cared about beating them. Quick, who did TCU lose to that gave the program a boost? They won, and they won more, and they won even more.
Winning gets publicity and recruits. It has to be sustained. One special win here and there won't do the trick. One special loss here and there for sure won't.
So win. Then win more. Then win the the big ones. There is a pattern there for those who care to look.
The road back starts with winning. Every step of the way relies on winning. It boggles the mind that some denigrate winning. If not to win, why play?
You guys can construct any model you want of how to get respect and a P5 invite through not winning. I will just root for my team to win. Every game. Every year. Not to look good., although that would be a welcome bonus, but to win. Then win again, and win more. Sadly, at Rice, that may put me in a minority.
Yes, it is simple, a no brainer. makes me wonder why so many of Rice's big brains are in disagreement.
As I said before, if you think there is something better than winning, tell us. If there is something you want from Bloomgren that is better than winning, let's hear it.

Exactly.

The controversy over whether we'd rather beat--or even lose respectably--to a top major than win 10 against a CUSA schedule strike me as wrong-headed for two reasons:

1) We're not going to be good enough to beat--or lose a close game to--an LSU or aTm or Texas, until we get good enough to win 10 against a CUSA schedule. So win the games on our schedule, keep winning them, and over time upgrade the schedule. That's the only way to get where we want to go, wherever that is.

2) Beating a top team can be a signature win if we are also winning against the rest of our schedule. But if we were to beat a Texas or LSU and finish 4-8 for the season, it would mean every bit as much as it did for ODU to beat VaTech.

So we're not going to beat a top P5 team until we are good enough to dominate CUSA, and it wouldn't mean much if we did. So get better, win whatever game we are playing, and keep getting better and better and winning and winning.

I'm looking a little more closely at the schedule. We may have a chance in the games against Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, and North Texas. We get the best teams in our division at Rice Stadium. If we're playing well, there's more than a reasonable chance against any CUSA team at home. The fans need to turn out.

As for the road, UAB just graduated 37 seniors, UTSA is never anything special, and UTEP is UTEP. There should be enough improvement this year to expect wins in at least a couple of these games.

(12-18-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No wonder we have a problem with our football program. One guy has a goal of being just below the top 25. Another would rather lose to a top team in a close game than win against a conference opponent. Others just want to look good executing.

All due respect OO, but (thankfully) nothing we bozos say here impacts the performance of the program. I'm pretty confident our HC wants to win every game he plays. I'm also pretty confident that he wants the team to execute well even when we don't win.

I want more quarterbacks named Chad.

(12-18-2018 11:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No wonder we have a problem with our football program. One guy has a goal of being just below the top 25. Another would rather lose to a top team in a close game than win against a conference opponent. Others just want to look good executing.
I say just win. win against the worst team on our schedule. Win against the best one. Win the one we are playing next. Win today. Win ugly, win pretty, win routs, win close ones.
Win, enough and consistently, and the good things will come. Sure, winning 10 by itself one year is not enough. Been there, done that, no joy. We need to do it consistently. Winning 10 is not enough. We need to win more. And losing to LSU or Notre Dame by 10 is surely not going to help us much, if at all. Been there, done that. After a week, it is just another loss. People give the team's record as x wins and Y losses. I have never seen any record listed as x wins, y losses, of which z were close games again top opponents. But it seems that is the preference of some.
Some people point to TCU as a model. Well, TCU didn't care who they played as much as they cared about beating them. Quick, who did TCU lose to that gave the program a boost? They won, and they won more, and they won even more.
Winning gets publicity and recruits. It has to be sustained. One special win here and there won't do the trick. One special loss here and there for sure won't.
So win. Then win more. Then win the the big ones. There is a pattern there for those who care to look.
The road back starts with winning. Every step of the way relies on winning. It boggles the mind that some denigrate winning. If not to win, why play?
You guys can construct any model you want of how to get respect and a P5 invite through not winning. I will just root for my team to win. Every game. Every year. Not to look good., although that would be a welcome bonus, but to win. Then win again, and win more. Sadly, at Rice, that may put me in a minority.
Yes, it is simple, a no brainer. makes me wonder why so many of Rice's big brains are in disagreement.
As I said before, if you think there is something better than winning, tell us. If there is something you want from Bloomgren that is better than winning, let's hear it.

Exactly.

The controversy over whether we'd rather beat--or even lose respectably--to a top major than win 10 against a CUSA schedule strike me as wrong-headed for two reasons:

1) We're not going to be good enough to beat--or lose a close game to--an LSU or aTm or Texas, until we get good enough to win 10 against a CUSA schedule. So win the games on our schedule, keep winning them, and over time upgrade the schedule. That's the only way to get where we want to go, wherever that is.

2) Beating a top team can be a signature win if we are also winning against the rest of our schedule. But if we were to beat a Texas or LSU and finish 4-8 for the season, it would mean every bit as much as it did for ODU to beat VaTech.

So we're not going to beat a top P5 team until we are good enough to dominate CUSA, and it wouldn't mean much if we did. So get better, win whatever game we are playing, and keep getting better and better and winning and winning.

It is historically verifiable fact that beating bad teams does not, in itself, lead to beating good teams.

Also, upgrading the schedule is not in Rice's control. Rice will get limited opportunities to beat good teams, and building a program that can clean up against G5 dregs and FCS teams, but can't win the big games, will get the program exactly nowhere. This, too, is a matter of historical record.

It's true that a program that can beat good teams can also beat bad teams. The converse is not true.

(12-18-2018 02:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  It is historically verifiable fact that beating bad teams does not, in itself, lead to beating good teams.
Also, upgrading the schedule is not in Rice's control. Rice will get limited opportunities to beat good teams, and building a program that can clean up against G5 dregs and FCS teams, but can't win the big games, will get the program exactly nowhere. This, too, is a matter of historical record.
It's true that a program that can beat good teams can also beat bad teams. The converse is not true.

To respond to your first sentence, it is at least equally historically verifiable, and intuitively obvious, that losing to bad teams sure as hell doesn't lead to beating good teams. To respond to your last paragraph, it is at least equally true, and again intuitively obvious, that a program that cannot beat bad teams cannot beat good teams.

That's where we are now. The road to get from not being good enough to beat bad teams to being good enough to beat good teams clearly passes through getting good enough to beat bad teams. When you're not good enough to beat bad teams, you're not going to improve enough to beat good teams without first becoming good enough to beat bad teams.

The idea that we can somehow get good enough to beat an LSU or TexasU or aTm, without being good enough to go 10-2 or better against a CUSA schedule seems rather incredulous. We have to walk before we can run.

And on the flip side, I can't see much of a signature win in beating LSU or TexasU or aTm, and coming home and losing to ODU or UTSA or UTEP. TCU's signature wins were signature wins because they came on top of winning 9, 10, 11, or 12 other games. Beating LSU or TexasU or aTm in the process of winning 2 or 3, means no more that beating TexasU on the way to 2-8 in 1965, or beating LSU on the way to 2-8 in 1966, or beating aTm on the way to 3-7 in 1969.

What I am saying, and what I think OO is saying, is that we want to see Rice be good enough to beat LSU and TexasU and aTm, as Rice did when we were undergrads, but first we have to be good enough to beat UTEP and UTSA and UNT and LaTech and Southern Miss. And we are not doing that now.

For those on the other side of this issue, exactly how do you expect to build a team that can beat LSU or TexasU or aTm without being good enough to dominate CUSA?

(12-18-2018 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  It is historically verifiable fact that beating bad teams does not, in itself, lead to beating good teams.
Also, upgrading the schedule is not in Rice's control. Rice will get limited opportunities to beat good teams, and building a program that can clean up against G5 dregs and FCS teams, but can't win the big games, will get the program exactly nowhere. This, too, is a matter of historical record.
It's true that a program that can beat good teams can also beat bad teams. The converse is not true.

To respond to your first sentence, it is at least equally historically verifiable, and intuitively obvious, that losing to bad teams sure as hell doesn't lead to beating good teams. To respond to your last paragraph, it is at least equally true, and again intuitively obvious, that a program that cannot beat bad teams cannot beat good teams.

That's where we are now. The road to get from not being good enough to beat bad teams to being good enough to beat good teams clearly passes through getting good enough to beat bad teams. When you're not good enough to beat bad teams, you're not going to improve enough to beat good teams without first becoming good enough to beat bad teams.

The idea that we can somehow get good enough to beat an LSU or TexasU or aTm, without being good enough to go 10-2 or better against a CUSA schedule seems rather incredulous. We have to walk before we can run.

And on the flip side, I can't see much of a signature win in beating LSU or TexasU or aTm, and coming home and losing to ODU or UTSA or UTEP. TCU's signature wins were signature wins because they came on top of winning 9, 10, 11, or 12 other games. Beating LSU or TexasU or aTm in the process of winning 2 or 3, means no more that beating TexasU on the way to 2-8 in 1965, or beating LSU on the way to 2-8 in 1966, or beating aTm on the way to 3-7 in 1969.

What I am saying, and what I think OO is saying, is that we want to see Rice be good enough to beat LSU and TexasU and aTm, as Rice did when we were undergrads, but first we have to be good enough to beat UTEP and UTSA and UNT and LaTech and Southern Miss. And we are not doing that now.

For those on the other side of this issue, exactly how do you expect to build a team that can beat LSU or TexasU or aTm without being good enough to dominate CUSA?

Man, this straw man takes a beating and just keeps coming back.

Let me rephrase, and then we'll see how OO and you can twist my words. Should be amusing.

Bloomgren's predecessor built a team that could - briefly - amass a good W-L record but that didn't amount to much in the overall D-I rankings. A 10 win season didn't lead to glory because his team - even at its best - was never more than a paper tiger. I don't want another paper tiger. I want a team that actually is good because of a focus is on building a good team, not on amassing a good W-L record against poor competition. There's a difference, a big difference, a demonstrable difference between the two.

As for your last question, I never said or even implied anything to that effect. That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.

In 2013 Rice finished 10-4. Mississippi St. finished 7-6.

Safe to say Mississippi St. was a much better team, W-L records notwithstanding.

Surely that's enough said?

I love these threads.

(12-18-2018 05:03 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Bloomgren's predecessor built a team that could - briefly - amass a good W-L record but that didn't amount to much in the overall D-I rankings. A 10 win season didn't lead to glory because his team - even at its best - was never more than a paper tiger. I don't want another paper tiger. I want a team that actually is good because of a focus is on building a good team, not on amassing a good W-L record against poor competition. There's a difference, a big difference, a demonstrable difference between the two.

This. Exactly this.

I don’t want a paper tiger or a straw man.
What I do want is a new synthetic turf made from 100% post-consumer recycled paper.
That way we can finally find out once and for all, which team is truly better “on paper”.

That is all.

(12-18-2018 12:40 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No wonder we have a problem with our football program. One guy has a goal of being just below the top 25. Another would rather lose to a top team in a close game than win against a conference opponent. Others just want to look good executing.

All due respect OO, but (thankfully) nothing we bozos say here impacts the performance of the program. I'm pretty confident our HC wants to win every game he plays. I'm also pretty confident that he wants the team to execute well even when we don't win.

I want more quarterbacks named Chad.

This guy is available

I think every HC wants to win every game he plays. Duh.

But this thread is about what we fans want from Rice. I want wins. Ant said he would prefer a close loss to LSU than a win over UTSA.

I still want wins. Yes I prefer beating LSU to beating UTSA. Actually I prefer beating LSU AND UTSA. What good is a season in which you beat LSU but lose to UTSA?

(12-18-2018 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's where we are now. The road to get from not being good enough to beat bad teams to being good enough to beat good teams clearly passes through getting good enough to beat bad teams. When you're not good enough to beat bad teams, you're not going to improve enough to beat good teams without first becoming good enough to beat bad teams.

Sentence 2 -- 'good' 4 times, 'bad' 2 times.
Sentence 3 -- 'good' 3 times, 'bad' 2 times.

My eyes hurt trying to read that paragraph.

(12-18-2018 05:03 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  It is historically verifiable fact that beating bad teams does not, in itself, lead to beating good teams.
Also, upgrading the schedule is not in Rice's control. Rice will get limited opportunities to beat good teams, and building a program that can clean up against G5 dregs and FCS teams, but can't win the big games, will get the program exactly nowhere. This, too, is a matter of historical record.
It's true that a program that can beat good teams can also beat bad teams. The converse is not true.

To respond to your first sentence, it is at least equally historically verifiable, and intuitively obvious, that losing to bad teams sure as hell doesn't lead to beating good teams. To respond to your last paragraph, it is at least equally true, and again intuitively obvious, that a program that cannot beat bad teams cannot beat good teams.
That's where we are now. The road to get from not being good enough to beat bad teams to being good enough to beat good teams clearly passes through getting good enough to beat bad teams. When you're not good enough to beat bad teams, you're not going to improve enough to beat good teams without first becoming good enough to beat bad teams.
The idea that we can somehow get good enough to beat an LSU or TexasU or aTm, without being good enough to go 10-2 or better against a CUSA schedule seems rather incredulous. We have to walk before we can run.
And on the flip side, I can't see much of a signature win in beating LSU or TexasU or aTm, and coming home and losing to ODU or UTSA or UTEP. TCU's signature wins were signature wins because they came on top of winning 9, 10, 11, or 12 other games. Beating LSU or TexasU or aTm in the process of winning 2 or 3, means no more that beating TexasU on the way to 2-8 in 1965, or beating LSU on the way to 2-8 in 1966, or beating aTm on the way to 3-7 in 1969.
What I am saying, and what I think OO is saying, is that we want to see Rice be good enough to beat LSU and TexasU and aTm, as Rice did when we were undergrads, but first we have to be good enough to beat UTEP and UTSA and UNT and LaTech and Southern Miss. And we are not doing that now.
For those on the other side of this issue, exactly how do you expect to build a team that can beat LSU or TexasU or aTm without being good enough to dominate CUSA?

Man, this straw man takes a beating and just keeps coming back.
Let me rephrase, and then we'll see how OO and you can twist my words. Should be amusing.
Bloomgren's predecessor built a team that could - briefly - amass a good W-L record but that didn't amount to much in the overall D-I rankings. A 10 win season didn't lead to glory because his team - even at its best - was never more than a paper tiger. I don't want another paper tiger. I want a team that actually is good because of a focus is on building a good team, not on amassing a good W-L record against poor competition. There's a difference, a big difference, a demonstrable difference between the two.
As for your last question, I never said or even implied anything to that effect. That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.

I don't want a paper tiger either. I want a good team. I have two very specific points:

1) What you characterize as "amassing a good W-L record against poor competition" is a necessary step on the way from where we are now to being a good team. The problem with 2013 is not that we were what you call a paper tiger, but that we didn't build on that to become what you call a good team. A 10-win season didn't lead to glory because it led to an 8-win season and a 5-win season and a 3-win season and a 1-win season. Had we continued to improve from 2013 instead of regressing, I think we beat TexasU in 2015 (we were not that far apart). Winning games against the poor competition that CUSA provides has to be a step on the way, not the objective. I think we agree on that.

2) If we were to beat an LSU or TexasU or aTm without dominating CUSA, it would mean little or nothing. If, for example, we had started 2014 by upsetting either ND or aTm, and then come home and lost to ODU, we would pretty much have thrown away any gain. It would be the kind of one-off that ODU beating VaTech was this year.

So, to recap, we can't get to be good enough to beat LSU or TexasU or aTm without first getting good enough to dominate CUSA, and if by some fluke we did beat an LSU or TexasU or aTm without dominating CUSA, it would be pretty much meaningless. So rather than argue whether one or the other should be the objective, I simply say that neither is realistically going to happen without the other and neither really means much without the other.

As far as your comment about my question, I'm not saying that you said or implied anything to that effect, because I quite frankly don't know WTF you were trying to say.