(11-11-2019 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is what our leadership needs to realize and address. Being competitive in this conference is not nearly enough.

But we aren't even that. And we've got to get at least there before we can think about going where we need to be. The only acceptable place to be in CUSA is to be utterly dominating the conference that we make ourselves attractive to some better conference. We're not there, we're not close, and at this point we aren't even threatening to be close.

(11-11-2019 12:26 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 07:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Re Baylor:
Matt Rhule did two very smart things wen he got to Baylor. Number one, he has apparently cleaned up a program that was an embarrassment to the university, which bought him time to turn things around. Number two, he knew he did not have Texas connections, particularly connections to the THSCA, so he hired the then president of the THSCA (David Wetzel) and one of the most successful Texas HS coaches (Joey McGuire of Cedar Hill) to his staff. Dave Campbell's Texas Football recently did a poll of HS coaches as to which Texas FBS head coaches they trusted most. Patterson was #1, Rhule was #2. That means he's going to win some recruiting battles.
Rice has had two head coaches come in with basically no Texas connections and tried to get by without hiring any Texas connections--Jerry Berndt and Bloomgren. So far, Berndt has the better record against a tougher schedule.
I don't think you can succeed at Rice, or anywhere in Texas, without strong THSCA connections.

I agree that we need more Texas connections on the staff, but Bloomgren did hire Drew Svoboda, who was a very successful head coach of Klein Collins HS, and Bill Best, who has a Texas background (I think played at W. Texas A&M) and has coached at the FCS level in Texas for a number of years-- and he kept Vestal, who is from Texas. We still need more, but not accurate to say he hired none.

Yeah, I was probably being a bit hyperbolic there. And I do remember that Bloomgren did make sure to be very visibly present at THSCA events.

But I don't think we committed as publicly to Texas and THSCA as Rhule did. Rhule basically said, I'm not from here, and I am hiring these guys because I need to address that. At the time, I think I expressed on here that I thought that was genius. I don't think Bloomgren went that far, and I don't think Texas connections were emphasized in the hiring process.

If I got hired at Rice (or similarly at any school in Texas), I think I'd try to hire a staff of 10 consisting of
1) 3 coordinators (offense, defense, special teams) in whom I had the utmost trust and confidence
2) as many as I could get from the immediate past presidents of the Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma HS coaches associations (one or more of these might be administrators rather than on-the-field coaches)
3) the remainder from guys with both Rice and Texas HS (and possibly NFL) connections

I'd tell group 1) to install their schemes and I'd tell groups 2) and 3) to recruit, recruit, recruit.

In other news, honesty compels me to point out that the guy I wanted, Alex Grinch, just saw his OU defense give up over 40 for the second game in a row (this time a win). But he is still generally regarded as having made great strides with that defense this year, he had and still has Texas recruiting contacts, and he would have been able to put together an offensive staff from Leach's TT players and coaches. But he's way out of our price range now.

Quote:At the time, I think I expressed on here that I thought that was genius.

Looking back, I didn't quite say that in so many words, but not a bad post:

(12-14-2016 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So the criticism of the Rhule hire was that he had no Texas connections. He's addressing that in a big way here. I would expect more staff hires with strong Texas ties.
Looked up Rhule's bio. Interesting transition in his history:
2004 Western Carolina (AHC/LB/ST)
2005 Western Carolina (AHC/RGC/OL/ST)
2006 Temple (DL)
2007 Temple (QB/RC)
2008 Temple (OC/QB)
Kind of a Swiss Army knife. Just thinking, RUOwls could coach receivers, running backs, and secondary, and you'd have it all covered with a two-man staff. And Ruhle was academic all-B1G and RUOwls was PBK, so you'd have a pretty brainy pair as well. Hire 8 HS coaches and tell them to recruit, recruit, recruit.

I kind of like thinking about what Rhule and RUOwls and 8 HS coaches (9 now with the increase in staff size) could do.

Baylor's 2019 class was soooooooooo Texas heavy (not): https://247sports.com/college/baylor/Sea...l/Commits/

It essentially is the same as what Bloom has done-majority from Texas, but dip into other states.

(11-11-2019 05:48 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Baylor's 2019 class was soooooooooo Texas heavy (not): https://247sports.com/college/baylor/Sea...l/Commits/
It essentially is the same as what Bloom has done-majority from Texas, but dip into other states.

I count 15 Texas and 9 out of state. That's still pretty heavy Texas. But I'm guessing their 15 Texans are a step or two above our Texans. Same for their out of staters, too, for that matter. It's the quality of the recruits that matters, at least as much as the numbers.

That mix is one away from what I'd like to see at Rice (about 2/3 Texas, 1/3 elsewhere). I do think Rice has to recruit nationally. Aside from bordering states Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, I'd like to get recruiting pipelines going in Florida, the southeast generally, and California. I remember Fred's recruiting territory was "anywhere that Southwest has a non-stop flight." Fred had a Florida pipeline, Ken had an Arkansas pipeline and another at the HS in Atlanta that ran the option. The out of state locations are going to depend pretty heavily on where the HC and coordinators have contacts, if the rest of the staff is hired primarily for Texas connections.

Morris won 4 games at Arkansas (4-18) in two years and was sacked. Wonder if Rice will grow up and do the same if we go 0-12 or 1-12.

(11-11-2019 04:34 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  8 members of our conference in the bottom 25?

We could be in the top half of our conference and still be in the bottom 25?

Actually only 6 among the bottom 25, which consists of 106-130.

While of course you are correct, WRC... does this really matter? This is (imo) something that we do that detracts from the point. 8 in the bottom 25 or 8 in the bottom 29 doesn't matter. What matters is that 8/14 of our conference (including US) are HORRIBLE... are not competitive... are not relevant on the local, much less the national stage.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but this is a distinction without a difference.

(11-11-2019 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is what our leadership needs to realize and address. Being competitive in this conference is not nearly enough.

But we aren't even that. And we've got to get at least there before we can think about going where we need to be. The only acceptable place to be in CUSA is to be utterly dominating the conference that we make ourselves attractive to some better conference. We're not there, we're not close, and at this point we aren't even threatening to be close.

The reason I stay away from this sort of comment is that that's how we end up polishing up a pile of **** and all taking selfies with it. Look, we won a game! Look we won 3! Look, we're competing for a bowl (along with other 100+ ranked teams)

I get it and what you're saying. What I'm saying is we need a plan to be top 50 within 5 years to the point where we barely notice the above meaningless 'accomplishments'. We need to quit acting like we're day old deer who can't walk and need to learn to stand first, and instead act like a world-class university with a century of athletics under our belt.

(11-11-2019 09:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 04:34 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 12:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  8 members of our conference in the bottom 25?

We could be in the top half of our conference and still be in the bottom 25?

Actually only 6 among the bottom 25, which consists of 106-130.

While of course you are correct, WRC... does this really matter? This is (imo) something that we do that detracts from the point. 8 in the bottom 25 or 8 in the bottom 29 doesn't matter. What matters is that 8/14 of our conference (including US) are HORRIBLE... are not competitive... are not relevant on the local, much less the national stage.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but this is a distinction without a difference.

(11-11-2019 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is what our leadership needs to realize and address. Being competitive in this conference is not nearly enough.

But we aren't even that. And we've got to get at least there before we can think about going where we need to be. The only acceptable place to be in CUSA is to be utterly dominating the conference that we make ourselves attractive to some better conference. We're not there, we're not close, and at this point we aren't even threatening to be close.

The reason I stay away from this sort of comment is that that's how we end up polishing up a pile of **** and all taking selfies with it. Look, we won a game! Look we won 3! Look, we're competing for a bowl (along with other 100+ ranked teams)

I get it and what you're saying. What I'm saying is we need a plan to be top 50 within 5 years to the point where we barely notice the above meaningless 'accomplishments'. We need to quit acting like we're day old deer who can't walk and need to learn to stand first, and instead act like a world-class university with a century of athletics under our belt.

+1

It’s not like Rice just added football or suddenly changed the academic standards to make recruiting more difficult. I wouldn’t be so bold to advocate top 50. Top 80 would be great. Make a bowl at least 90% of the time. Sure it’s fun to play the big time teams and get phat checks to get our heads bashed in but stop going crazy with it. (LSU, Stanford, Texas...) We need to be playing MW and SunBelt teams. No glitz or glam but win and build some confidence. Everybody loves a winner and when you never win it doesn’t matter who you beat. Just get wins. Stay away from the Lamar and PV’s of the world.

Every Sun Belt team would be favored against Rice in their home stadia. About half would be favored AT Rice.

Quote:

(11-11-2019 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is what our leadership needs to realize and address. Being competitive in this conference is not nearly enough.

But we aren't even that. And we've got to get at least there before we can think about going where we need to be. The only acceptable place to be in CUSA is to be utterly dominating the conference that we make ourselves attractive to some better conference. We're not there, we're not close, and at this point we aren't even threatening to be close.

The reason I stay away from this sort of comment is that that's how we end up polishing up a pile of **** and all taking selfies with it. Look, we won a game! Look we won 3! Look, we're competing for a bowl (along with other 100+ ranked teams).
I get it and what you're saying. What I'm saying is we need a plan to be top 50 within 5 years to the point where we barely notice the above meaningless 'accomplishments'. We need to quit acting like we're day old deer who can't walk and need to learn to stand first, and instead act like a world-class university with a century of athletics under our belt.

Agree with that, but I'm making a somewhat different point. We keep talking about CUSA as it were somehow beneath us. It's not. If anything, right now it is above us. If we won our last 3 games, this would still be a horrible season. But some would act like it was a corner-turning. Maybe it would be, but we couldn't know that until we see what happens next year. Being in CUSA sucks. Going 3-9, 2-10, 1-11, or God forbid 0-12 in CUSA sucks a lot more. Falling out of CUSA because we couldn't compete would hurt worse. But right now, that's the trajectory where we are.

I agree that we need a plan to be top 50 in 5 years. It seems to me that the steps in that plan need to be:

1) winning record in CUSA;
2) win division;
3) win league championship;
4) win league plus a signature win;
5) win league again, plus another signature win.

At this point, we are not even sniffing step 1), and haven't for 5 years. Winning 5, 3, 1, 2, and 0-3 won't get 'er done. Not close.

It's like the old debate about which was more important--winning CUSA or signature wins. They're the same thing. A team good enough to get the signature win is good enough to win CUSA--and better do both. We better do both--and soon.

I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

(11-11-2019 07:33 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Morris won 4 games at Arkansas (4-18) in two years and was sacked. Wonder if Rice will grow up and do the same if we go 0-12 or 1-12.

Not at all. Rice is a much tougher rebuild. Besides, there's no way Rice eats Bloomgren's huge contract right now. As a matter of fact, if he wins 5 games next season, that'll be enough progress to bring him back for a fourth year.

In the end, if none of this works out, Karlgaard needs to be shown the door as well. His handling of football has been horrendous this far.

(11-12-2019 09:27 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 07:33 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Morris won 4 games at Arkansas (4-18) in two years and was sacked. Wonder if Rice will grow up and do the same if we go 0-12 or 1-12.

Not at all. Rice is a much tougher rebuild. Besides, there's no way Rice eats Bloomgren's huge contract right now. As a matter of fact, if he wins 5 games next season, that'll be enough progress to bring him back for a fourth year.

In the end, if none of this works out, Karlgaard needs to be shown the door as well. His handling of football has been horrendous this far.

Agreed. And if the school did, I would assume JK wouldnt be far behind in looking for a position.

I would fantastically hope that a 2 in season last year (with losses to UTEP and UTSA) followed by an equivalent year (or worse) would be sufficient for the JK to Bloom courtesy call of 'care to step into my office and lets have a session about *tangible* goals for improvement next year' meeting.

I started down the Bloom critic path about three games into the CUSA season. But I would also agree that even with only 1 win this year, I dont know if I would cut Bloom if it were my choice. *But* with that 2 W of last year, and the (1-2) W of this year streak, I would have an absolutely frank sit down with Bloom that goes 'Rice football *must* see tangible improvement in the '21 season' ---- kind of like the written notice typically required on a breached contract before you can file suit.

I would hope JK has that type of discussion with Bloom -- this year, even if Rice does win out, kind of absolutely puts that on level on the table as a matter of course at this point for me. if that discussion doesnt happen there is either something wrong to the core either at the AD level, or the upper administration level. Or both.

(11-12-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

Just printed this out and framed it. But in all seriousness losing eats away at everything. Just start getting wins and the bigger recruits will come. Bigger and better recruits will mean more wins and chance at playing for CUSA titles year in and year out. That's the conference we are in so we need to make the focus on winning in the conference.

(11-12-2019 04:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:

(11-11-2019 05:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-11-2019 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  THIS is what our leadership needs to realize and address. Being competitive in this conference is not nearly enough.

But we aren't even that. And we've got to get at least there before we can think about going where we need to be. The only acceptable place to be in CUSA is to be utterly dominating the conference that we make ourselves attractive to some better conference. We're not there, we're not close, and at this point we aren't even threatening to be close.

The reason I stay away from this sort of comment is that that's how we end up polishing up a pile of **** and all taking selfies with it. Look, we won a game! Look we won 3! Look, we're competing for a bowl (along with other 100+ ranked teams).
I get it and what you're saying. What I'm saying is we need a plan to be top 50 within 5 years to the point where we barely notice the above meaningless 'accomplishments'. We need to quit acting like we're day old deer who can't walk and need to learn to stand first, and instead act like a world-class university with a century of athletics under our belt.

Agree with that, but I'm making a somewhat different point. We keep talking about CUSA as it were somehow beneath us. It's not. If anything, right now it is above us. If we won our last 3 games, this would still be a horrible season. But some would act like it was a corner-turning. Maybe it would be, but we couldn't know that until we see what happens next year. Being in CUSA sucks. Going 3-9, 2-10, 1-11, or God forbid 0-12 in CUSA sucks a lot more. Falling out of CUSA because we couldn't compete would hurt worse. But right now, that's the trajectory where we are.

I agree that we need a plan to be top 50 in 5 years. It seems to me that the steps in that plan need to be:

1) winning record in CUSA;
2) win division;
3) win league championship;
4) win league plus a signature win;
5) win league again, plus another signature win.

At this point, we are not even sniffing step 1), and haven't for 5 years. Winning 5, 3, 1, 2, and 0-3 won't get 'er done. Not close.

It's like the old debate about which was more important--winning CUSA or signature wins. They're the same thing. A team good enough to get the signature win is good enough to win CUSA--and better do both. We better do both--and soon.

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

These two posts speak to what I'm arguing against. Not that I disagree with you guys, merely that I have a different perspective.

It's almost impossible to have a signature win without being good enough to win 6-7 in a season, having a winning record in CUSA etc. To me, these interim steps should not be goals... they should be milestones. I may not be being clear... but we need to keep our eyes down the road... we need to plan for being top 50 (75?) and do the things it takes to get there.... and these other interim steps merely measure our progress towards those goals and are not goals themselves. THAT way, we don't end up with a 5 year plan to a winning season... but someone for whom a winning season is a foregone conclusion. It's hard to imagine being consistently top 75 and never peeking into the top 50, especially after a signature win.

Goals should be things we aspire to, not what we expect. We should expect to win 6-7 games per year and have a winning record in CUSA, regardless of where we currently are. THAT way, we don't end up celebrating 3-8 records but instead are 'accepting' of them, only in that they are SOMETIMES part of the path to 8-3. There is no reason they HAVE to be.

I think it was ODU or WKU and even UTSA, but they came into CUSA and were competitive, even winning. Toad came in and won immediately.

(11-12-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

App State is ranked 26th and Boise State is ranked 19th

(11-12-2019 10:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

App State is ranked 26th and Boise State is ranked 19th

App State's upset over Michigan and Boise's win over OU are two of the most memorable college football outcomes of all time. SI just recently ranked that App State win as the biggest upset of all time (https://www.si.com/college/2019/08/12/bi...-history).

Rice would give an arm and a leg for non-Rice fans to remember that we ever beat a team. The closest thing we have is that some college football nerds remember that a side-line player from Alabama once tackled a Rice player because he was too full of Alabama.

(11-12-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

App State is ranked 26th and Boise State is ranked 19th

App State's upset over Michigan and Boise's win over OU are two of the most memorable college football outcomes of all time. SI just recently ranked that App State win as the biggest upset of all time (https://www.si.com/college/2019/08/12/bi...-history).

Rice would give an arm and a leg for non-Rice fans to remember that we ever beat a team. The closest thing we have is that some college football nerds remember that a side-line player from Alabama once tackled a Rice player because he was too full of Alabama.

And yet BSu is still in the MW, and AppSt is still in whatever league they are in. Neither has garnered that invite to the P5. They and their SigWins are like the preserved flowers from a woman’s senior prom twenty years ago.

A SigWin is by definition an upset. People may remember upsets, but they do not attribute legitimacy on the basis of upsets.

(11-12-2019 10:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 10:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-12-2019 08:39 AM)RiceOL83 Wrote:  I’d take 6 or 7 wins a season over 1 signature win. Oh wow we beat a good team but finished 4-8. NO ONE CARES. Go .600 in conference games every year and pick up a couple beatable D1 non conference games. Players would much rather win than play 3 great teams and get beat to death then struggle through a crappy conference. It’s all about getting wins. People like winners. Players will come be a part of a winning program. 1-2-3 wins per season with an occasional signature win doesn’t peak anyone’s interest. Just saying. And the whole “moral” victory thing is what losers use to justify sucking. You either won or you lost. Showing improvement like the defense has is a good thing however.

I hate to be in agreement with OL83, but even a blind pig(him, not me) is right once in a while. Wins, wins, wins. Those signature wins are way overblown. People forget about them in somewhere between a week and next year. AppySt had their Michigan, and BoiseSt had their Oklahoma, and where are they? Heck Centre College had their Harvard. A signature win is like winning the Science Fair. Let our signature be "Rice wins a lot".

App State is ranked 26th and Boise State is ranked 19th

App State's upset over Michigan and Boise's win over OU are two of the most memorable college football outcomes of all time. SI just recently ranked that App State win as the biggest upset of all time (https://www.si.com/college/2019/08/12/bi...-history).

Rice would give an arm and a leg for non-Rice fans to remember that we ever beat a team. The closest thing we have is that some college football nerds remember that a side-line player from Alabama once tackled a Rice player because he was too full of Alabama.

Rice 7, #1 A&M 6.

Fat lot of good it did us when the break up came.

And do you remember the score of that Cotton Bowl game? It was a sig win too.