(09-30-2019 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 10:37 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with the sequence before the half is that the pass play can't be the third down play. The sequence you want is 1st down running play, if you don't score timeout, 2nd down pass play, score or incomplete, 3rd down running play, if you don't score run clock down to 0:04 and call time out. The problem with the pass play on third down is that if it is incomplete you can't run the clock down. If you can get a TD take it and worry about the clock later. If you have to take a FG, you want it to be the last play of the half. The only way to ensure that is to have a timeout left and run a running play on 3rd down. Actually the pass play can come on 1st or 2nd down, or even both. But the 3rd down play needs to be a run, if you have a timeout left. And the two things you can't do on the pass is get sacked or get picked.
The objective is to score more points than they do in the last 65 seconds of the half. That sequence is the best way to do that.

The problem with the sequence is that it resulted in no points. You can bleed time many ways but you have to score.

But it scored no points because of the pick on third down, not because of the clock management.

Although if we truly had 2 timeouts left, then the sequencing was wrong. Third down is not the passing down in that sequence, first down and/or second down are.

You know I mostly agree with you. Where I slightly disagree is that there is no one way to sequence the run and the pass. If the goal is to save a TO for fourth down, then as you describe is a great way to do it. But if your goal is to score a TD, then call plays that can accomplish that. The ONE thing that you don't want in the sequence is a turnover. That guarantees no points. Even playing for a FG is still not a 100% proposition. It is greater than 90% but that just means you miss 1 in 10. And at this point in the game, you needed points. Since Rice got the ball first in the second half, any points meant that with your next possession you would be playing to take the lead provided one of the scores was a TD. It is a great instance where the offense can help the defense out greatly. You have the chance to take the lead with 2 scores without the defense having to take the field and make a stop. I can see how playing for the FG in this instance is ok. Not what I would do but it was ok. It made perfect sense if they were thinking that way. And if they were thinking that way and started off trying to run the ball into the endzone they should have just stuck with it. The pass they chose ended up being a horrible play. It gave the QB very little chance to be successful. Don't know how they designed it but I can tell you that 2 Rice receivers were nearly at the same point along the endline directly in front of the QB with almost the entire La Tech defense between the receivers and the QB. And this included the backside safety that stepped in front of the ball for the interception. I am guessing the QB was never told to check backside because he never looked that way. I will point out that Rice did put a back in the backside flat as a checkdown but QB never looked there either. The back wouldn't have scored a TD because he was covered by the flat defender who was just waiting to go get him. Had QB thrown there however, it would might have been complete and stopped short so you would have needed a TO to stop the clock. It would however, given you the FG try but it would have put the ball on the hash and at around the 2-4 yard line which would have been a more difficult FG attempt.
So, I agree that the sequencing, play calling and play design in this case was likely to produce the results we all saw. And issues like these have popped up multiple times in equally critical situations. At what point will the talent differential reach a point where these events won't impact the outcome of the game negatively? Who knows? The scary thing to me is that at some point they will and that it may just reinforce that what is being done is the best thing to do and they continue and the same results will occur in these types of games. Because, it has happened over at least 3 of the 5 losses that I can think of right now.

Bloomgren is up to #13 in the Coaches Hot Seat.

(09-28-2019 10:07 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:59 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Was it intellectual? No. Was it brutal? Yes.

Sounds like you've got our new slogan: brutal intellectuality.

(09-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Upside: we now have taken three games down to the wire.

Downside: we lost all three.

In the end, the important things are the W’s.

More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

(09-30-2019 12:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:07 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:59 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Was it intellectual? No. Was it brutal? Yes.

Sounds like you've got our new slogan: brutal intellectuality.

(09-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Upside: we now have taken three games down to the wire.

Downside: we lost all three.

In the end, the important things are the W’s.

More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

But he's not Bailiff. He may just be AnybodyButBailiff.

GO, as I remember, you were one of the ones advocating that we be ready with a quick hook, instead of giving a new coach 3, 4, 5 years. How do you feel about that now? Fire him now?

(09-30-2019 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 12:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:07 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:59 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Was it intellectual? No. Was it brutal? Yes.

Sounds like you've got our new slogan: brutal intellectuality.

(09-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Upside: we now have taken three games down to the wire.
Downside: we lost all three.
In the end, the important things are the W’s.

More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

But he's not Bailiff. He may just be AnybodyButBailiff.
GO, as I remember, you were one of the ones advocating that we be ready with a quick hook, instead of giving a new coach 3, 4, 5 years. How do you feel about that now? Fire him now?

I have always said 3 years, and still say that. I would have fired Bailiff after 3 years, BTW, or certainly after 4 or 5. I would have given him a 5-year rolling contract with a cheap buyout after 2008, and I would have bought it out after 2009. Or maybe just not rolled it over after 2009 and then bought him out after 2010. And there's no way he would have stayed past 2011 in any event. Bailiff could catch lightning in a bottle, but he couldn't maintain.

(09-30-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 12:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:07 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 09:59 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Was it intellectual? No. Was it brutal? Yes.

Sounds like you've got our new slogan: brutal intellectuality.

(09-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Upside: we now have taken three games down to the wire.
Downside: we lost all three.
In the end, the important things are the W’s.

More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

But he's not Bailiff. He may just be AnybodyButBailiff.
GO, as I remember, you were one of the ones advocating that we be ready with a quick hook, instead of giving a new coach 3, 4, 5 years. How do you feel about that now? Fire him now?

I have always said 3 years, and still say that. I would have fired Bailiff after 3 years, BTW, or certainly after 4 or 5.

I have been saying 3, but others say 4 or 5.

Even though he is only 2-16 career, I see some trends and withhold a yea/nay judgement until later.

(09-30-2019 11:08 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:45 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 06:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 11:23 PM)Hank16 Wrote:  That kind of talk before an winnable game is really bad if true!

If true is the operative part of that statement. I doubt he actually said that, but he probably said something that the Bloom-haters can conjure up as that.

Agreed that it's doubtful he said that.

Bloom says that and his team quits on him for sure. And if there is one thing that this team hasn't done, is quit.

I think you can see that by our play on the defensive side of the ball. While being ranked 86 in PPG against isn't good, when you look at who we've played I think it is a good indicator of effort being put forth by the team (especially since we
re a G5 school). Offenses faced are ranked: Army (72), Wake Forest (34), Texas (13), Baylor (16), and La Tech (84). I expect to see our defense improve as we play more CUSA teams.

What's infuriating is we're ranked almost dead last at 14.8 ppg (Georgia Tech is holding down #130 at 13.5 ppg), and we've not played any stellar defenses.

That and much more has been said. Dude is an a$&. It’s all about him.

Seriously- why are you still posting here? It's a free country, but does this give you pleasure?

This happens during every coaching change- your situation is not unique. Read about the overhaul that Bronco Mendenhall did when he got to Virginia- I'm sure those existing players were not all lazy losers, but the program was in the tank and needed an overhaul (and our situation was even worse)- and he completely threw the old players and staff under the bus.
Part of a new culture unfortunately includes some myth-making about how bad the last staff was and how terrible the situation was the new coach inherited (please take a minute and look up some news articles surrounding any coaching change where the previous coach was fired for poor performance). Think about Bailiff and his "we only had 50 players our first spring"- and every new staff says the previous one was undisciplned and out of shape (everyone's new strength coach is the greatest and always amazed and how small/slow the existing players are). This happens everywhere. There is nothing personal against your guy. If Bloomgren thought he gave them a better chance to win he would have played him more. If he thought he was not as good- or even equal to- someone he recruited then he wouldn't.
I understand the schaudenfreud of watching Bloomgren go 0-5 probably makes you feel good/ justified, but his personnel decisions- whether you or I agree with them or not- are intended to create a stronger program today and in the future. Unfortunately, most of the time the corollary to "we are building something great here" as a recruiting pitch is it was not great before.
I wish we could have held onto some of the guys that transferred, but 1) that is life in college football today, and 2) it is always expected during a coaching change. The bottom line is that we were god-awful the last two years. It remains to be seen if Bloomgren can change that in the next year or two, but is is completely unsurprising how he is going about it from a personnel standpoint. I'm sorry you got caught in the transition. It has happened to many of us

Why are most of you idiots posting here? Have y’all not read all the negative nonsensical crap you write from time to time. But whatever. You’re correct. Had a love for Rice but it has since been destroyed. So I’ll leave the three or four of you guys here posting to circle jerk among yourselves.

(09-30-2019 11:56 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 10:37 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with the sequence before the half is that the pass play can't be the third down play. The sequence you want is 1st down running play, if you don't score timeout, 2nd down pass play, score or incomplete, 3rd down running play, if you don't score run clock down to 0:04 and call time out. The problem with the pass play on third down is that if it is incomplete you can't run the clock down. If you can get a TD take it and worry about the clock later. If you have to take a FG, you want it to be the last play of the half. The only way to ensure that is to have a timeout left and run a running play on 3rd down. Actually the pass play can come on 1st or 2nd down, or even both. But the 3rd down play needs to be a run, if you have a timeout left. And the two things you can't do on the pass is get sacked or get picked.
The objective is to score more points than they do in the last 65 seconds of the half. That sequence is the best way to do that.

The problem with the sequence is that it resulted in no points. You can bleed time many ways but you have to score.

But it scored no points because of the pick on third down, not because of the clock management.

Although if we truly had 2 timeouts left, then the sequencing was wrong. Third down is not the passing down in that sequence, first down and/or second down are.

You know I mostly agree with you. Where I slightly disagree is that there is no one way to sequence the run and the pass. If the goal is to save a TO for fourth down, then as you describe is a great way to do it. But if your goal is to score a TD, then call plays that can accomplish that. The ONE thing that you don't want in the sequence is a turnover. That guarantees no points. Even playing for a FG is still not a 100% proposition. It is greater than 90% but that just means you miss 1 in 10. And at this point in the game, you needed points. Since Rice got the ball first in the second half, any points meant that with your next possession you would be playing to take the lead provided one of the scores was a TD. It is a great instance where the offense can help the defense out greatly. You have the chance to take the lead with 2 scores without the defense having to take the field and make a stop. I can see how playing for the FG in this instance is ok. Not what I would do but it was ok. It made perfect sense if they were thinking that way. And if they were thinking that way and started off trying to run the ball into the endzone they should have just stuck with it. The pass they chose ended up being a horrible play. It gave the QB very little chance to be successful. Don't know how they designed it but I can tell you that 2 Rice receivers were nearly at the same point along the endline directly in front of the QB with almost the entire La Tech defense between the receivers and the QB. And this included the backside safety that stepped in front of the ball for the interception. I am guessing the QB was never told to check backside because he never looked that way. I will point out that Rice did put a back in the backside flat as a checkdown but QB never looked there either. The back wouldn't have scored a TD because he was covered by the flat defender who was just waiting to go get him. Had QB thrown there however, it would might have been complete and stopped short so you would have needed a TO to stop the clock. It would however, given you the FG try but it would have put the ball on the hash and at around the 2-4 yard line which would have been a more difficult FG attempt.
So, I agree that the sequencing, play calling and play design in this case was likely to produce the results we all saw. And issues like these have popped up multiple times in equally critical situations. At what point will the talent differential reach a point where these events won't impact the outcome of the game negatively? Who knows? The scary thing to me is that at some point they will and that it may just reinforce that what is being done is the best thing to do and they continue and the same results will occur in these types of games. Because, it has happened over at least 3 of the 5 losses that I can think of right now.

Did either QB roll out or run a play action all night?

(09-30-2019 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Looks like you guys were not wrong to put all your eggs in the 2020 basket.

BUT...

I think we can win a lot of the remaining seven, including a tiny chance at being bowl eligible.

Saint Todd was 1-5 in 2006, ended up 7-5.

I was thinking about the 2006 season on Saturday.

Trivia fact about 2006 that I don’t think I knew at the time (and only noticed many years later). If we’d only won our opening conference game, and all others played out the same, we would have actually won the division. Opening conference loss was a one point heartbreaker to UH (who finished 7-1 to our 5-3). I am afraid that last weekend could turn out to have been the one we needed to win this division... if so.... I will still be glad to be over 500 and bowl bound, etc... but wow, we should have won this one!!!

(09-30-2019 07:43 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 11:56 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 10:37 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-29-2019 09:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem with the sequence before the half is that the pass play can't be the third down play. The sequence you want is 1st down running play, if you don't score timeout, 2nd down pass play, score or incomplete, 3rd down running play, if you don't score run clock down to 0:04 and call time out. The problem with the pass play on third down is that if it is incomplete you can't run the clock down. If you can get a TD take it and worry about the clock later. If you have to take a FG, you want it to be the last play of the half. The only way to ensure that is to have a timeout left and run a running play on 3rd down. Actually the pass play can come on 1st or 2nd down, or even both. But the 3rd down play needs to be a run, if you have a timeout left. And the two things you can't do on the pass is get sacked or get picked.
The objective is to score more points than they do in the last 65 seconds of the half. That sequence is the best way to do that.

The problem with the sequence is that it resulted in no points. You can bleed time many ways but you have to score.

But it scored no points because of the pick on third down, not because of the clock management.

Although if we truly had 2 timeouts left, then the sequencing was wrong. Third down is not the passing down in that sequence, first down and/or second down are.

You know I mostly agree with you. Where I slightly disagree is that there is no one way to sequence the run and the pass. If the goal is to save a TO for fourth down, then as you describe is a great way to do it. But if your goal is to score a TD, then call plays that can accomplish that. The ONE thing that you don't want in the sequence is a turnover. That guarantees no points. Even playing for a FG is still not a 100% proposition. It is greater than 90% but that just means you miss 1 in 10. And at this point in the game, you needed points. Since Rice got the ball first in the second half, any points meant that with your next possession you would be playing to take the lead provided one of the scores was a TD. It is a great instance where the offense can help the defense out greatly. You have the chance to take the lead with 2 scores without the defense having to take the field and make a stop. I can see how playing for the FG in this instance is ok. Not what I would do but it was ok. It made perfect sense if they were thinking that way. And if they were thinking that way and started off trying to run the ball into the endzone they should have just stuck with it. The pass they chose ended up being a horrible play. It gave the QB very little chance to be successful. Don't know how they designed it but I can tell you that 2 Rice receivers were nearly at the same point along the endline directly in front of the QB with almost the entire La Tech defense between the receivers and the QB. And this included the backside safety that stepped in front of the ball for the interception. I am guessing the QB was never told to check backside because he never looked that way. I will point out that Rice did put a back in the backside flat as a checkdown but QB never looked there either. The back wouldn't have scored a TD because he was covered by the flat defender who was just waiting to go get him. Had QB thrown there however, it would might have been complete and stopped short so you would have needed a TO to stop the clock. It would however, given you the FG try but it would have put the ball on the hash and at around the 2-4 yard line which would have been a more difficult FG attempt.
So, I agree that the sequencing, play calling and play design in this case was likely to produce the results we all saw. And issues like these have popped up multiple times in equally critical situations. At what point will the talent differential reach a point where these events won't impact the outcome of the game negatively? Who knows? The scary thing to me is that at some point they will and that it may just reinforce that what is being done is the best thing to do and they continue and the same results will occur in these types of games. Because, it has happened over at least 3 of the 5 losses that I can think of right now.

Did either QB roll out or run a play action all night?

Roll out: not that I remember
Play action: yes

So a lot of us aren't enamored of "pound the rock." Actually, the whole statement was, "Pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense." We don't have the pound the rock part down, but we have been playing pretty solid defense for the most part.

But since a lot of you don't seem to like pound the rock, what are some other recent Rice philosophical approaches?

Fred's philosophy was, "Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good quarterback, and you can beat anybody."
Ken's was, "Do something better, or do something different."
Todd wasn't around long enough for is philosophy to sink in, and David never really expressed any obvious philosophy.

I kind of like combining Fred's and Ken's--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense (that is hard for opponents to prepare for).

I am generally pleased with our defense and special teams. That should get us a few wins. This year could still end up like 2006.

(09-30-2019 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So a lot of us aren't enamored of "pound the rock." Actually, the whole statement was, "Pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense." We don't have the pound the rock part down, but we have been playing pretty solid defense for the most part.

But since a lot of you don't seem to like pound the rock, what are some other recent Rice philosophical approaches?

Fred's philosophy was, "Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good quarterback, and you can beat anybody."
Ken's was, "Do something better, or do something different."
Todd wasn't around long enough for is philosophy to sink in, and David never really expressed any obvious philosophy.

I kind of like combining Fred's and Ken's--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense (that is hard for opponents to prepare for).

I am generally pleased with our defense and special teams. That should get us a few wins. This year could still end up like 2006.

Isn't that the Stanford model?

(09-30-2019 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 12:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2019 10:07 PM)elw4796 Wrote:  Sounds like you've got our new slogan: brutal intellectuality.

(09-28-2019 10:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Upside: we now have taken three games down to the wire.
Downside: we lost all three.
In the end, the important things are the W’s.

More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

But he's not Bailiff. He may just be AnybodyButBailiff.
GO, as I remember, you were one of the ones advocating that we be ready with a quick hook, instead of giving a new coach 3, 4, 5 years. How do you feel about that now? Fire him now?

I have always said 3 years, and still say that. I would have fired Bailiff after 3 years, BTW, or certainly after 4 or 5.

I have been saying 3, but others say 4 or 5.

Even though he is only 2-16 career, I see some trends and withhold a yea/nay judgement until later.

Tl;dr: Jury out--not looking so good so far. Not seeing needle move, just flutter a blip. Not nearly enough, and clock's tickin'.

For those interested:

I watched the Army game with a bunch of Army alumns. I was cautiously hopeful afterwards due to the close score, but wanted to see a) how good Army was this year vs last and b) how we did against other opponents with a) more traditional playbooks (as far as today's game, that is) and b) ones we didn't have all summer to prepare for.
The Wake game wasn't too bad, and currently they are ranked, so that's something. Texas game was not fun to watch, but not completely unexpected, and Baylor was a shame. Now, last week vs LA Tech, would begin to indicate what we can do against the far lesser foes in CUSA. It was there for the taking, and we missed.

I will say that for the most part, given what he has to work with, it has looked like we are playing the game of football in most games. That's a big positive change from many games throughout the last regime, where it wasn't always clear we were playing the same sport as our opponents.

I saw a poster on another thread this season comment that for Rice to win, we need a decent QB. I'd have to agree with that, and nothing personal, as I'm sure they're fine guys, but we haven't had a decent QB on the roster for a while. We actually need a somewhat superior QB, but harder to recruit one here than in past, it seems, not that it was ever easy.

Two things seem true so far: Coach Bloom, while not the previous coach, may well turn out to be Anybody But last guy. I don't see how we really expect to outmanhandle non-CUSA teams with the current roster of recruits, and am skeptical we will be able to do so against CUSA teams that may be able to burn our defense. While there has been some improvement in areas, I'm not seeing a definite sea-change in overall program direction that rises clearly above much of the last one did that would/will lead to what I consider necessary "Signature Wins" in the future. Jury still out on whether Coach Bloom can dominate CUSA. If he in fact cannot at least get us to undefeated vs CUSA in near future, than he is indeed "Anybody but Last guy" and would have my vote to be replaced. And yes, I'd vote to decide that sooner rather than later and waste another decade if it turns out to be the case.

I wondered something the other week: given the situation at Rice, if one was indeed to wish to eviscerate the football program, and have it palatable to the die-hards to end it, one might hire a coach who, while appearing to embody some of the desired missing toughness in running a program, might choose a style of play that his recruits were just physically incapable of finding much success with, especially against the superior level teams (read: P5) teams necessary to beat in order to finally move the needle of the program perception. I then thought a lot about Oberlin and the stereotypical folks who seem to predominate its graduates, and tried to see how that meshed with, say, former SWC type programs as far as success. The two seemed somewhat contradictory. CDC came from a Pac-12 environment, jumped to a crafty, hustling and committed TCU, rode that all the way to TexU. Why did we go to Oberlin, of all places, to find an AD that would be crafty enough to find a superior way than what we were doing to try to regain our status as P5 worthy?

IS the defense somewhat better? I believe so, but somewhat better will not really change too much--we need authentically superior. Is the offense? Maybe some of the line, but overall, not close yet. I can't help think what RUOWls would do, and really don;t mind the gamble--we're spending the money anyway, what could it hurt to give him a go. Don't think he would do much worse than what we're seeing and what we've seen the past 11 years, and we don't have much to lose at this point. We could at least answer the question before he gets (with all respect as I have only a vague idea of his age) too old to try it.

The other week, I found myself switching between the Rice-Baylor game and the UGA-Notre Dame game--twice. After seeing the difference, why change back to the Houston feed? UGA-ND played a helluva game--and I care less about the big guys these days than I used to when I followed them more. But it was so entertaining, no matter who won. (Tech stinks this year, so I like to root for a winner--hence, the Dawgs.) Rice football needs to earn viewers/followers, maybe more than many other or most other programs do for a lot of factors, but those factors exist. Without the W's, it's just not fun.

It's difficult to believe a team of leadership (Pres/BOT/AD/Coach) that was truly committed and motivated and this is about the best they can do. Something reeks of lack of commitment, despite the rhetoric. I'm not going to blame Coach Bloom, but I'm not yet convinced he has the magic answer for our school, though he and his offensive philosophy might well work at many other schools. I'm leaning to the camp that to succeed at Rice football, we need something contrarian, and something NOT the wishbone, but more the run-and shoot and unusual scheming to counter balance the spread-happy current state of the college game, not to mention, I enjoy reading and wish to see on the field demonstrated the using leverage and angles stuff RUOWls or a coach like him might try. I don't think we can for the way things are in the college game, recruit enough beefcake, especially with the needed athleticism, to run over people at Rice. Earl Campbell's ilk are not going to come here barring drastic change in the playoff (16 teams, every conference champ gets in, or at least G5 gets 3 spots guaranteed and a realistic shot at at-larges.)

Even the NCAA tourney is moving quickly towards shutting out most non-P5 teams. NFL and NBA jumped the shark for me many years ago. Other than 28-3, can't remember last time I watched a Super Bowl, or who won. Soooo boring. NBA just absolutely unwatchable and full of some of the most off-putting personalities I've ever experienced in all my years watching pro sports. Real shame. Add in the unwarranted and unhinged politics and those are nonstarters. So there are two pro seasons left: Baseball, which still has all the drama and tradition, and NHL, which is a fun as heck sport to watch. I try to follow some Rice in between, but it's getting harder to care.

I believe it can still be done here, but our leadership lack the commitment. Leebron's been here a long time, wish we'd get a Prez here who cared about sports the way we used to. It's been more than half a century. JK's done about all hes' going to do here. Do a Joe Maddon: Thanks, good luck, and move on to next guy.

Coach Bloom's main legacy at Rice so far: who he is not. As the year progresses, that become less of a leg to stand on. In fact, who he was not was arguably the reason we hired both our AD and our last Coach. Both show working from fear, not ambition. It shows. We need a leadership team with ambition in sports. Commensurate and congruent with our alleged academic ambition. Both are suffering, falling slowly in the rankings. Not a coincidence in my opinion. Dumb marketing. I still vote for Transformation.

There, OO, is that what you wanted?

(10-01-2019 01:10 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 04:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 03:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 12:04 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  More like Brutal Incrementalism. (We need to Transform that next week.)

But he's not Bailiff. He may just be AnybodyButBailiff.
GO, as I remember, you were one of the ones advocating that we be ready with a quick hook, instead of giving a new coach 3, 4, 5 years. How do you feel about that now? Fire him now?

I have always said 3 years, and still say that. I would have fired Bailiff after 3 years, BTW, or certainly after 4 or 5.

I have been saying 3, but others say 4 or 5.

Even though he is only 2-16 career, I see some trends and withhold a yea/nay judgement until later.

Tl;dr: Jury out--not looking so good so far. Not seeing needle move, just flutter a blip. Not nearly enough, and clock's tickin'.

For those interested:

I watched the Army game with a bunch of Army alumns. I was cautiously hopeful afterwards due to the close score, but wanted to see a) how good Army was this year vs last and b) how we did against other opponents with a) more traditional playbooks (as far as today's game, that is) and b) ones we didn't have all summer to prepare for.
The Wake game wasn't too bad, and currently they are ranked, so that's something. Texas game was not fun to watch, but not completely unexpected, and Baylor was a shame. Now, last week vs LA Tech, would begin to indicate what we can do against the far lesser foes in CUSA. It was there for the taking, and we missed.

I will say that for the most part, given what he has to work with, it has looked like we are playing the game of football in most games. That's a big positive change from many games throughout the last regime, where it wasn't always clear we were playing the same sport as our opponents.

I saw a poster on another thread this season comment that for Rice to win, we need a decent QB. I'd have to agree with that, and nothing personal, as I'm sure they're fine guys, but we haven't had a decent QB on the roster for a while. We actually need a somewhat superior QB, but harder to recruit one here than in past, it seems, not that it was ever easy.

Two things seem true so far: Coach Bloom, while not the previous coach, may well turn out to be Anybody But last guy. I don't see how we really expect to outmanhandle non-CUSA teams with the current roster of recruits, and am skeptical we will be able to do so against CUSA teams that may be able to burn our defense. While there has been some improvement in areas, I'm not seeing a definite sea-change in overall program direction that rises clearly above much of the last one did that would/will lead to what I consider necessary "Signature Wins" in the future. Jury still out on whether Coach Bloom can dominate CUSA. If he in fact cannot at least get us to undefeated vs CUSA in near future, than he is indeed "Anybody but Last guy" and would have my vote to be replaced. And yes, I'd vote to decide that sooner rather than later and waste another decade if it turns out to be the case.

I wondered something the other week: given the situation at Rice, if one was indeed to wish to eviscerate the football program, and have it palatable to the die-hards to end it, one might hire a coach who, while appearing to embody some of the desired missing toughness in running a program, might choose a style of play that his recruits were just physically incapable of finding much success with, especially against the superior level teams (read: P5) teams necessary to beat in order to finally move the needle of the program perception. I then thought a lot about Oberlin and the stereotypical folks who seem to predominate its graduates, and tried to see how that meshed with, say, former SWC type programs as far as success. The two seemed somewhat contradictory. CDC came from a Pac-12 environment, jumped to a crafty, hustling and committed TCU, rode that all the way to TexU. Why did we go to Oberlin, of all places, to find an AD that would be crafty enough to find a superior way than what we were doing to try to regain our status as P5 worthy?

IS the defense somewhat better? I believe so, but somewhat better will not really change too much--we need authentically superior. Is the offense? Maybe some of the line, but overall, not close yet. I can't help think what RUOWls would do, and really don;t mind the gamble--we're spending the money anyway, what could it hurt to give him a go. Don't think he would do much worse than what we're seeing and what we've seen the past 11 years, and we don't have much to lose at this point. We could at least answer the question before he gets (with all respect as I have only a vague idea of his age) too old to try it.

The other week, I found myself switching between the Rice-Baylor game and the UGA-Notre Dame game--twice. After seeing the difference, why change back to the Houston feed? UGA-ND played a helluva game--and I care less about the big guys these days than I used to when I followed them more. But it was so entertaining, no matter who won. (Tech stinks this year, so I like to root for a winner--hence, the Dawgs.) Rice football needs to earn viewers/followers, maybe more than many other or most other programs do for a lot of factors, but those factors exist. Without the W's, it's just not fun.

It's difficult to believe a team of leadership (Pres/BOT/AD/Coach) that was truly committed and motivated and this is about the best they can do. Something reeks of lack of commitment, despite the rhetoric. I'm not going to blame Coach Bloom, but I'm not yet convinced he has the magic answer for our school, though he and his offensive philosophy might well work at many other schools. I'm leaning to the camp that to succeed at Rice football, we need something contrarian, and something NOT the wishbone, but more the run-and shoot and unusual scheming to counter balance the spread-happy current state of the college game, not to mention, I enjoy reading and wish to see on the field demonstrated the using leverage and angles stuff RUOWls or a coach like him might try. I don't think we can for the way things are in the college game, recruit enough beefcake, especially with the needed athleticism, to run over people at Rice. Earl Campbell's ilk are not going to come here barring drastic change in the playoff (16 teams, every conference champ gets in, or at least G5 gets 3 spots guaranteed and a realistic shot at at-larges.)

Even the NCAA tourney is moving quickly towards shutting out most non-P5 teams. NFL and NBA jumped the shark for me many years ago. Other than 28-3, can't remember last time I watched a Super Bowl, or who won. Soooo boring. NBA just absolutely unwatchable and full of some of the most off-putting personalities I've ever experienced in all my years watching pro sports. Real shame. Add in the unwarranted and unhinged politics and those are nonstarters. So there are two pro seasons left: Baseball, which still has all the drama and tradition, and NHL, which is a fun as heck sport to watch. I try to follow some Rice in between, but it's getting harder to care.

I believe it can still be done here, but our leadership lack the commitment. Leebron's been here a long time, wish we'd get a Prez here who cared about sports the way we used to. It's been more than half a century. JK's done about all hes' going to do here. Do a Joe Maddon: Thanks, good luck, and move on to next guy.

Coach Bloom's main legacy at Rice so far: who he is not. As the year progresses, that become less of a leg to stand on. In fact, who he was not was arguably the reason we hired both our AD and our last Coach. Both show working from fear, not ambition. It shows. We need a leadership team with ambition in sports. Commensurate and congruent with our alleged academic ambition. Both are suffering, falling slowly in the rankings. Not a coincidence in my opinion. Dumb marketing. I still vote for Transformation.

There, OO, is that what you wanted?

I wanted your your opinion, especially on the topic of pulling a quick trigger on a coach who is slow to show results, so, yes, thank you.

(10-01-2019 01:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I wanted your your opinion, especially on the topic of pulling a quick trigger on a coach who is slow to show results, so, yes, thank you.

You're welcome, bud. Thanks for askin'.

(10-01-2019 01:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 01:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I wanted your your opinion, especially on the topic of pulling a quick trigger on a coach who is slow to show results, so, yes, thank you.

You're welcome, bud. Thanks for askin'.

Great post.

(09-30-2019 09:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So a lot of us aren't enamored of "pound the rock." Actually, the whole statement was, "Pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense." We don't have the pound the rock part down, but we have been playing pretty solid defense for the most part.
But since a lot of you don't seem to like pound the rock, what are some other recent Rice philosophical approaches?
Fred's philosophy was, "Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good quarterback, and you can beat anybody."
Ken's was, "Do something better, or do something different."
Todd wasn't around long enough for is philosophy to sink in, and David never really expressed any obvious philosophy.
I kind of like combining Fred's and Ken's--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense (that is hard for opponents to prepare for).
I am generally pleased with our defense and special teams. That should get us a few wins. This year could still end up like 2006.

Isn't that the Stanford model?

You're closer to Stanford than I am, but from afar, not really. Pound the rock is hardly something different.

(10-01-2019 06:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So a lot of us aren't enamored of "pound the rock." Actually, the whole statement was, "Pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense." We don't have the pound the rock part down, but we have been playing pretty solid defense for the most part.
But since a lot of you don't seem to like pound the rock, what are some other recent Rice philosophical approaches?
Fred's philosophy was, "Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good quarterback, and you can beat anybody."
Ken's was, "Do something better, or do something different."
Todd wasn't around long enough for is philosophy to sink in, and David never really expressed any obvious philosophy.
I kind of like combining Fred's and Ken's--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense (that is hard for opponents to prepare for).
I am generally pleased with our defense and special teams. That should get us a few wins. This year could still end up like 2006.

Isn't that the Stanford model?

You're closer to Stanford than I am, but from afar, not really. Pound the rock is hardly something different.

Question: We keep pointing to Stanford's struggles as an indictment of pound the rock. But what about Wisconsin?

To be clear, I'm not saying we'll be able to recruit like Stanford or Wisconsin, just wondering about feasibility of the scheme in modern CFB

(10-01-2019 08:53 AM)Intellectual_Brutality Wrote:  

(10-01-2019 06:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 09:10 PM)ruowls Wrote:  

(09-30-2019 08:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So a lot of us aren't enamored of "pound the rock." Actually, the whole statement was, "Pound the rock, run the clock, and play great defense." We don't have the pound the rock part down, but we have been playing pretty solid defense for the most part.
But since a lot of you don't seem to like pound the rock, what are some other recent Rice philosophical approaches?
Fred's philosophy was, "Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and have a good quarterback, and you can beat anybody."
Ken's was, "Do something better, or do something different."
Todd wasn't around long enough for is philosophy to sink in, and David never really expressed any obvious philosophy.
I kind of like combining Fred's and Ken's--Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense (that is hard for opponents to prepare for).
I am generally pleased with our defense and special teams. That should get us a few wins. This year could still end up like 2006.

Isn't that the Stanford model?

You're closer to Stanford than I am, but from afar, not really. Pound the rock is hardly something different.

Question: We keep pointing to Stanford's struggles as an indictment of pound the rock. But what about Wisconsin?

To be clear, I'm not saying we'll be able to recruit like Stanford or Wisconsin, just wondering about feasibility of the scheme in modern CFB

The way we're doing it won't work. Fullback up the middle against a stacked box - with no threat of a qb draw, a counter, or playaction - stopped working years ago. Linebackers today are just too fast and too strong. The glory days of fullbacks shrugging LB's off their shoulders as they stride downfield are long over.

Bloomgren's play calling needs work, but I'm pleased with the overall improvement of the team. I still think we'll win three or four games this season. I like what I see.