On Saturday, Green and McCaffrey will both be put in positions to succeed. The plays will be tailored to fit each QBs unique skill set. I'm not worried about it. Let's find out which one has more ability to move the offense, and let's go with that one guy by the time conference play starts. Both QBs are good. Both can win the "preseason" games even though they will be rotated in and out of the game.

What's most important for Rice right now is winning enough games to go to a bowl game every season. Then we win the conference with regularity. That's what people notice...consistent success. A big win against Arkansas does does nothing for us if we finish 5-7. I believe we have a chance to beat Arkansas, and we'll play to win the game, but the reality is that winning seasons and bowl games mean more at this point, and we have a good chance at beating UH and winning a lot of conference games this season. Work out all the kinks right now to make that happen. We all need to be in New Orleans for a bowl game come December.

(09-01-2021 08:57 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 08:05 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  The difference for us is that the only time to actually make an impression on the greater college football world in the context of the current sea change is our out of conference schedule. We need to be more ready for these games not less and not working kinks out. That's the reality, and if Bloom is no more ready than DB then the only difference is that one of them can't seem to even get the "regular season" right.

But here's the problem, Hutch. We are a long way from being able to make any kind of splash in those games today. We've got to build to get to the point where we can change that.

We've had the old argument about whether it is more important to win CUSA or to register a "signature" win against a P5. They are the same thing. We won't be good enough to beat a P5 until we are good enough to win CUSA. It doesn't matter which one you consider most important, because doing one is the best way to do the other. Right now we have to be all about the business of getting better.

TCU had a bunch of "signature" wins from the Sun Bowl win over Southern Cal in 1998 until the Rose Bowl win over Wisconsin in 2011. And they got invited to step up in conference affiliation twice in that time frame. But the reason they were signature wins was because TCU was backing them up with 9, 10, 11, and 12 win regular seasons.

If we come up with a decade of 9-3, 10-2, 11-1, and 12-0 regular seasons, like TCU did, we will get our share of "signature" wins--and we will attract the attention of some conference that we would want to belong to. But we have to do both. Right now, to paraphrase Groucho Marx talking about country clubs, why would we want to belong to any conference that would be willing to have us as a member?

And treating those games as "preseason" games may be the best way to build to that point. My problem with Bailiff is that he called them "preseason" games but didn't treat them the way the NFL treats preseason games. Play a bunch of people, find out what you've got. Instead he just kept sending the first team out there all game, wore them down, and then used the "preseason" excuse for the loss. There is no excuse for wearing a player out, and getting him hurt, in a game you can't win, when there are plenty of games on the schedule that you can win, if you keep that player healthy.

I think that's generally fair, but it's also year four, which is an eternity in bigtime college football turnaround parlance, and if we can't even compete in these games we'll be starting over anew yet again. I also don't think it's too much to ask with plenty of game tape and plenty of reps on our QB's to hand one of them the game ball and say it's your job to lose today. Having been in the situation not having that defined is a bad situation for both QBs and the team. And, I think this indecision has something to do with why we can't compete (ie still insisting on fitting the QB to a "system" that doesn't seem to be a system if it hasn't worked rather than system to QB).

I don't know what the comparative records are, but both were under .500. At least by this point, Bailiff had a 10 win season to point to. Bloom has a 20-0 win over Marshall.

But the first few games of the the season are the games to work out kinks. Frankly, that is why Arkansas scheduled us, and why the big time teams nearly always start off against weaker teams - to work out the kinks, answer some questions. We are a preseason game for the Pigs. I am sure that they do not put as much emhasis on beating Rice as they do on winning SEC games.

But instead of preseason, call it the first game of a season long learning experience. Better?

This year QB is a kink. If McC had not transferred in, it might still be a kink. Generally, everything new must be tested in game conditions to see if it holds up to expectations. Alldredge's replacement is a kink.

I wish we had the TSU game first, so we could treat it as our preseason, like Arkansas is treating us. But beggars cannot be choosers, and we are beggars.

Truth is, nearly every other sport, even in college, has a preseason, where they can play exhibitions to test players and plays under fire. Go to men's basketball, November 4, and what do you see? College football is the exception, and the early games have to do double duty - both as a test and for the record. Might as well recognize the double burden of these early games.

Is there a difference between losing(winning) an OOC game and a conference game? Some say no, some say yes. Maybe it depends on what the goals are. If the goal is an undefeated season and a berth in the playoffs, then no. If the goal is a division championship and a berth in the conference championship game, then yes.

Right now, I think our goal is closer to the latter.

If playing two QBs in the opener gets us closer to the latter this year, I am for it. If designating one gets us closer to the latter, I am for it. I will not let petty distinctions like "preseason" derail me - I just want to win, to get as many W's as possible, and whatever legal route gets us there, I am for.

We all here want Rice to win. Every time we take the field. We don't have to agree on the best way to do that.

I'd clarify that competing to me doesn't mean that I demand winning. I think the best example for Bloomgren is UH a couple years ago when we we're still really overmatched with them. We came out and had a bunch of unique offensive wrinkles and bet the house on getting pressure on the QB even if it left the back end open. We had an opponent specific plan and for a good portion of the game executed it and put a scare in a superior opponent. That's competing to me. You can only hold off Ed Oliver for so long, but we did. Unfortunately sightings of that team have been few and far between with even Marshall last year heavily defensive and Covid impacted given their Oline and running back issues.

More broadly speaking about expectations I've always liked Chip's notion that given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory. I'm fine with that as long as their is evidence of attempting to compete hard with every team every week. Generally think the players have under Bloom, waiting for the coaching on at least one side of the ball to help out to start getting on the more mature end of the cycle.

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I'd clarify that competing to me doesn't mean that I demand winning. I think the best example for Bloomgren is UH a couple years ago when we we're still really overmatched with them. We came out and had a bunch of unique offensive wrinkles and bet the house on getting pressure on the QB even if it left the back end open. We had an opponent specific plan and for a good portion of the game executed it and put a scare in a superior opponent. That's competing to me. You can only hold off Ed Oliver for so long, but we did. Unfortunately sightings of that team have been few and far between with even Marshall last year heavily defensive and Covid impacted given their Oline and running back issues.

More broadly speaking about expectations I've always liked Chip's notion that given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory. I'm fine with that as long as their is evidence of attempting to compete hard with every team every week. Generally think the players have under Bloom, waiting for the coaching on at least one side of the ball to help out to start getting on the more mature end of the cycle.

We aren't so different. But I need to see wins, not just competing, at some point. For me the bottom line is written in W's and L's. Competing in these first three games is a hopeful sign that we will get some W's later this season and in future seasons. As a first step, it is fine. But not as a final goal.

I don't want a cycle. I want to get to the top and stay there. I think maybe you meant to say "trend".

I have always thought the players compete hard.

(09-01-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I'd clarify that competing to me doesn't mean that I demand winning. I think the best example for Bloomgren is UH a couple years ago when we we're still really overmatched with them. We came out and had a bunch of unique offensive wrinkles and bet the house on getting pressure on the QB even if it left the back end open. We had an opponent specific plan and for a good portion of the game executed it and put a scare in a superior opponent. That's competing to me. You can only hold off Ed Oliver for so long, but we did. Unfortunately sightings of that team have been few and far between with even Marshall last year heavily defensive and Covid impacted given their Oline and running back issues.

More broadly speaking about expectations I've always liked Chip's notion that given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory. I'm fine with that as long as their is evidence of attempting to compete hard with every team every week. Generally think the players have under Bloom, waiting for the coaching on at least one side of the ball to help out to start getting on the more mature end of the cycle.

We aren't so different. But I need to see wins, not just competing, at some point. For me the bottom line is written in W's and L's. Competing in these first three games is a hopeful sign that we will get some W's later this season and in future seasons. As a first step, it is fine. But not as a final goal.

I don't want a cycle. I want to get to the top and stay there. I think maybe you meant to say "trend".

I have always thought the players compete hard.

I knew that post would get you going.

(09-01-2021 10:18 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  I'd clarify that competing to me doesn't mean that I demand winning. I think the best example for Bloomgren is UH a couple years ago when we we're still really overmatched with them. We came out and had a bunch of unique offensive wrinkles and bet the house on getting pressure on the QB even if it left the back end open. We had an opponent specific plan and for a good portion of the game executed it and put a scare in a superior opponent. That's competing to me. You can only hold off Ed Oliver for so long, but we did. Unfortunately sightings of that team have been few and far between with even Marshall last year heavily defensive and Covid impacted given their Oline and running back issues.

More broadly speaking about expectations I've always liked Chip's notion that given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory. I'm fine with that as long as their is evidence of attempting to compete hard with every team every week. Generally think the players have under Bloom, waiting for the coaching on at least one side of the ball to help out to start getting on the more mature end of the cycle.

We aren't so different. But I need to see wins, not just competing, at some point. For me the bottom line is written in W's and L's. Competing in these first three games is a hopeful sign that we will get some W's later this season and in future seasons. As a first step, it is fine. But not as a final goal.

I don't want a cycle. I want to get to the top and stay there. I think maybe you meant to say "trend".

I have always thought the players compete hard.

I knew that post would get you going.

Surprised that I want to win? Maybe you don't know me as well as you think.

The idea that Rice can compete with P5 schools is laughable. That ship sailed a long time ago for all G5 schools. Sure, there is an occasional blip like UCF, Houston or Boise State, but those require a perfect confluence of things, and even those don't last for long. And Rice, with so many institutional barriers, has no chance.

The talent gap is too large. The NFL does not care where you play college football - that league just wants talent. In the 2021 NFL draft, 87 of the first 100 players were from P5 schools.

Rice should concentrate on being successful at its own level, and regard these non-conference games as opportunities to improve. Of course, to win a game like the one against Arkansas, one must take a few chances. Bloomgren, however, seems 100% risk-averse.

(08-31-2021 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:22 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 04:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 03:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 12:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Tandem quarterbacks...

...the ultimate and definitive example of failing to learn from the past. No better example can be found in business or in history books.

Why do college football coaches, over and over and over again, think "this time will be different"? They get to be head football coaches in the first place by being decisive and willing to make tough decisions, but when it comes time to choose a starter they become weak-willed and passive-aggressive. Why is that?

I don't think Bloom is planning to go with duel QBs. Rather, I think he's going to use the Arkansas game as the final audition to determine who the starter will be going forward.

Preseason games are an opportunity to work the kinks out. And I agree he probably isn't planning trial by combat to resolve the matter.

If we're treating this like a pre-season game we may as well have 1) kept Bailiff and 2) not play any more seasons at all at any level.

We have painted ourselves into a corner over this word "preseason".

All college coaches use the first couple of games, especially nonconference games, to tweak and work out things. That's one reason they are usually scheduled before the conference games. Arkansas will be watching certain players to see how they do. We don't get exhibition games like the pros, so the early season games do double duty. Like it or not, we have two seasons - in conference and out of it. You can call it preseason, or OOC, or Henry the VIII, but it is what it is. An early season OOC game by any other name still smells.

As for Bailiff vs. Bloomgren, what's the difference?

I think this article helps answer, in part, the emphasized portion above: https://www.underdogdynasty.com/conferen...shall-herd

This is the telling excerpt from that article:

"Meanwhile, Rice made the biggest strides in getting their roster to a competitive level. While the Owls still rank just 12th in the conference in Team Talent, they rose 18 points in the national rankings. This serves as a brutal reminder of just how poor of shape the roster was in when Mike Bloomgren took this job."

(09-01-2021 10:35 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The idea that Rice can compete with P5 schools is laughable. That ship sailed a long time ago for all G5 schools. Sure, there is an occasional blip like UCF, Houston or Boise State, but those require a perfect confluence of things, and even those don't last for long. And Rice, with so many institutional barriers, has no chance.

The talent gap is too large. The NFL does not care where you play college football - that league just wants talent. In the 2021 NFL draft, 87 of the first 100 players were from P5 schools.

Rice should concentrate on being successful at its own level, and regard these non-conference games as opportunities to improve. Of course, to win a game like the one against Arkansas, one must take a few chances. Bloomgren, however, seems 100% risk-averse.

I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect Rice to play an 8 game SEC schedule with its current roster.

It’s absolutely possible for Rice to win a single game against a P5 team, however. Arkansas has lost to two C-USA teams in the last five years. Yes, I do think their program is on the upswing, but they’re not a heavyweight yet.

The fact that we don’t even appear to be trying to win is unacceptable.

(09-01-2021 10:55 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 05:22 PM)mebehutchi Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 04:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-31-2021 03:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I don't think Bloom is planning to go with duel QBs. Rather, I think he's going to use the Arkansas game as the final audition to determine who the starter will be going forward.

Preseason games are an opportunity to work the kinks out. And I agree he probably isn't planning trial by combat to resolve the matter.

If we're treating this like a pre-season game we may as well have 1) kept Bailiff and 2) not play any more seasons at all at any level.

We have painted ourselves into a corner over this word "preseason".

All college coaches use the first couple of games, especially nonconference games, to tweak and work out things. That's one reason they are usually scheduled before the conference games. Arkansas will be watching certain players to see how they do. We don't get exhibition games like the pros, so the early season games do double duty. Like it or not, we have two seasons - in conference and out of it. You can call it preseason, or OOC, or Henry the VIII, but it is what it is. An early season OOC game by any other name still smells.

As for Bailiff vs. Bloomgren, what's the difference?

I think this article helps answer, in part, the emphasized portion above: https://www.underdogdynasty.com/conferen...shall-herd

This is the telling excerpt from that article:

"Meanwhile, Rice made the biggest strides in getting their roster to a competitive level. While the Owls still rank just 12th in the conference in Team Talent, they rose 18 points in the national rankings. This serves as a brutal reminder of just how poor of shape the roster was in when Mike Bloomgren took this job."

so now being twelfth in Team Talent in CUSA is a plus? Yay! We're number twelve!


Bailiff was ultimately a failure, and Bloom, IMO, is a failure so far. Failure = failure.

Of course, Bloom still has a chance to not be a failure, and I hope he makes the most of it. I hope in 5 years the parliament is looking for ways to keep him from being poached. But there is only one word that will bring that about - winning. Not effort, not competiveness, winning. Nobody will come looking to poach a 2-10 coach who made his team competitive.

It's not up to me to tell the coach how to win. If he thinks the best way to win more games this season is to play 5 QBs in the opener, OK, let's see how that works. he will live and die on his record.

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory.

Careful to whom you attribute that notion. I'm not fine with it, at least not while we are in CUSA. We should dominate CUSA, meaning 6,7, or 8 conference wins every year. So the worst we should ever be for a season is 6-6.

(09-01-2021 10:35 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  The idea that Rice can compete with P5 schools is laughable. That ship sailed a long time ago for all G5 schools. Sure, there is an occasional blip like UCF, Houston or Boise State, but those require a perfect confluence of things, and even those don't last for long. And Rice, with so many institutional barriers, has no chance.

The talent gap is too large. The NFL does not care where you play college football - that league just wants talent. In the 2021 NFL draft, 87 of the first 100 players were from P5 schools.

Rice should concentrate on being successful at its own level, and regard these non-conference games as opportunities to improve. Of course, to win a game like the one against Arkansas, one must take a few chances. Bloomgren, however, seems 100% risk-averse.

I'll go with you at the start of this.... I disagree with the first line of the last paragraph (though I agree 100% with the rest of it).

No offense intended, but that line is the difference between track and football.

Anything that would work against Arkansas would also work against another team. The key to winning CUSA is the same as beating a school like Arkansas... being able to overcome athletic disadvantages and schemes... because if you can't, you will continue to recruit decreasingly talented players (on the whole)... and constantly run to the middle of the peer group.

Football is about 11 guys winning their battles on each play. Sometimes those battles aren't designed to 'make the play', but merely to 'make the real play possible' and that is still a 'win'. Win enough battles on enough plays and you win the game. This game against Arkansas and other schools like it should be proving grounds for adaptation and innovation. If it can work against these guys 50% of the time, it will work against CUSA 90% of the time.... and 50% of the time MIGHT be good enough to beat these other schools on the right day.

(09-01-2021 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The key to winning CUSA is the same as beating a school like Arkansas.

Absolutely. That's why I think the discussions of signature win versus winning CUSA are pointless. Winning CUSA and getting signature wins are the same thing, because they require the same things. TCU's big wins were signature wins, but they were signature wins because at the same time they were dominating first CUSA and then MWC. Rice beat #2 Texas in Austin in 1965, and went 2-8 for the year. Was that a signature win or a one-off fluke?

1) We need to recruit to minimize talent disadvantages imposed inherently by our unique status.
2) We need a philosophy that will enable us to overcome those talent disadvantages.
3) We need to execute that philosophy perfectly.

I think David Bailiff did 1) fairly well, but I never saw evidence of 2) or 3). So far with Bloomgren, I haven't really seen any one of the three. More than anyone else, I think Ruowls is very much about doing 2) and 3), and therein lies the appeal of his approach. Not that he would neglect 1), just that he would really push 2) and 3).

I still think our philosophy needs to be a combination of Fred and Ken. Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense.

(09-01-2021 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory.

Careful to whom you attribute that notion. I'm not fine with it, at least not while we are in CUSA. We should dominate CUSA, meaning 6,7, or 8 conference wins every year. So the worst we should ever be for a season is 6-6.

Cycle to me means something repetitive. I am not OK with going 1-12 every fourth year. That's why I suggested he might mean "trend". But when we get to 9-3 or better, I want to stay there. That is not a bad plateau.

Yes, a relatively high bar. But we won't get to the top by setting low bars, even if we clear them.

(09-01-2021 11:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 11:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 09:58 AM)mebehutchi Wrote:  given Rice's situation a cycle of 1-12, 5-7, 7-5, 9-3 or something like that should be satisfactory.

Careful to whom you attribute that notion. I'm not fine with it, at least not while we are in CUSA. We should dominate CUSA, meaning 6,7, or 8 conference wins every year. So the worst we should ever be for a season is 6-6.

Cycle to me means something repetitive. I am not OK with going 1-12 every fourth year. That's why I suggested he might mean "trend". But when we get to 9-3 or better, I want to stay there. That is not a bad plateau.
Yes, a relatively high bar. But we won't get to the top by setting low bars, even if we clear them.

I'd say an occasional 5-7 as the bottom of the cycle might be acceptable. There are perfect storm years. But 6 CUSA wins should be pretty much our acceptable minimum, and that means 6-6 should be the bottom of our cycles. 6-6, 8-4, 10-2, 12-0, 11-1, 9-3, 7-5 is an acceptable cycle.

For anybody interested in some propaganda, the athletics department is streaming a preview show on YouTube right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-FDqtO5nMc

I guess this is in lieu of the coach's fan meeting we had on Mondays pre-pandemic?

E: It's Matthew Bartlett (The Roost) with JP Heath.

(09-01-2021 09:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But instead of preseason, call it the first game of a season long learning experience. Better?

How many years of experience as head coach does a person get before it's no longer acceptable that each season is a season-long learning experience?

Four years and he still doesn't know enough by now to make the call on who the leader of the team will be with the information he has at hand at the beginning of a season, and he doesn't yet understand the critical importance of making that call before the start of a game. You're ok with that, and ok with excusing every season as a "learning experience". I'm not.

(09-01-2021 11:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-01-2021 11:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The key to winning CUSA is the same as beating a school like Arkansas.

Absolutely. That's why I think the discussions of signature win versus winning CUSA are pointless. Winning CUSA and getting signature wins are the same thing, because they require the same things. TCU's big wins were signature wins, but they were signature wins because at the same time they were dominating first CUSA and then MWC. Rice beat #2 Texas in Austin in 1965, and went 2-8 for the year. Was that a signature win or a one-off fluke?

1) We need to recruit to minimize talent disadvantages imposed inherently by our unique status.
2) We need a philosophy that will enable us to overcome those talent disadvantages.
3) We need to execute that philosophy perfectly.

I think David Bailiff did 1) fairly well, but I never saw evidence of 2) or 3). So far with Bloomgren, I haven't really seen any one of the three.

I still think our philosophy needs to be a combination of Fred and Ken. Play sound defense, win the kicking game, and do something different on offense.

This seems to be what Bloomgren is trying to do. The defense and special teams have improved. The question is whether the "something different" is the right "something different." So far doesn't appear to be. But we'll see if the new OC makes a difference.

(09-01-2021 10:35 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Of course, to win a game like the one against Arkansas, one must take a few chances. Bloomgren, however, seems 100% risk-averse.

Risk aversion is part of his pedigree. He learned it from his mentor, David Shaw.

(09-01-2021 12:02 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  This seems to be what Bloomgren is trying to do. The defense and special teams have improved. The question is whether the "something different" is the right "something different." So far doesn't appear to be. But we'll see if the new OC makes a difference.

The something different needs to be something that caters to the unique talents that we are capable of recruiting. "Pound the rock" may well be viable with certain personnel, but I don't think that works with the people we can recruit. I think we can get the QB who has been a stud in HS but whom Texas tells, "Come here and we will make you a safety." That's not what you want for "pound the rock." I also don't think we can get the big dominant pancaking offensive linemen. How I'd approach it is how Fred did, recruit a lot of defensive linemen, and the ones not agile enough to play defense move over to offense.