(09-26-2021 08:56 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 08:21 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  I am taking solace in Arkansas, Texas and Houston performing so well, early on; that was a very tough start for a program such as ours is.

A win as last night's ended up was very satisfying, as was 48 points and 620 yards in total offense, with us basically leaving another touchdown and a few yards on the table by being kind to TSU in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Football is skills, effort, execution and confidence, and this should help our confidence and mental state, going forward. I think we upset Southern Miss next week (ESPN has them favored) and score at least 27 points in doing it (27 because I am accounting for the inevitable missed extra point, which is vexing in its own right).

I really can't see anything 'really satisfying' about last night's win. We let perhaps the worst team in FCS hang around the entire game. It was ugly and frustrating.

We’re they ever within 14 with the ball? I thought the margin pretty much went 21, 14, 21, 14. Hang around maybe means no blowout but at no point in the second half was that game in jeopardy. We should have hurried up a bit, used our time outs and jammed that last score in, so we could claim a 21 point victory.

(09-26-2021 10:46 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 08:56 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 08:21 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  I am taking solace in Arkansas, Texas and Houston performing so well, early on; that was a very tough start for a program such as ours is.

A win as last night's ended up was very satisfying, as was 48 points and 620 yards in total offense, with us basically leaving another touchdown and a few yards on the table by being kind to TSU in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Football is skills, effort, execution and confidence, and this should help our confidence and mental state, going forward. I think we upset Southern Miss next week (ESPN has them favored) and score at least 27 points in doing it (27 because I am accounting for the inevitable missed extra point, which is vexing in its own right).

I really can't see anything 'really satisfying' about last night's win. We let perhaps the worst team in FCS hang around the entire game. It was ugly and frustrating.

We’re they ever within 14 with the ball? I thought the margin pretty much went 21, 14, 21, 14. Hang around maybe means no blowout but at no point in the second half was that game in jeopardy. We should have hurried up a bit, used our time outs and jammed that last score in, so we could claim a 21 point victory.

Why? The spread was 37. What difference does winning by 14 or 21 make when a team has clearly underperformed expectations?

What if the Owls had tried to get into the endzone in garbage time, and TSU successfully prevented such a meaningless score? At that point scoring again means nothing and not scoring, when trying to, is demoralizing.

Quote:the margin pretty much went 21, 14, 21, 14.

Every time they cut the lead to 14, our offense replied and stretched it back out to 21.

Every time we stretched the lead to21, our defense allowed them to cut it to 14.

(09-26-2021 10:51 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 10:46 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 08:56 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 08:21 AM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  I am taking solace in Arkansas, Texas and Houston performing so well, early on; that was a very tough start for a program such as ours is.

A win as last night's ended up was very satisfying, as was 48 points and 620 yards in total offense, with us basically leaving another touchdown and a few yards on the table by being kind to TSU in the last 2 minutes of the game.

Football is skills, effort, execution and confidence, and this should help our confidence and mental state, going forward. I think we upset Southern Miss next week (ESPN has them favored) and score at least 27 points in doing it (27 because I am accounting for the inevitable missed extra point, which is vexing in its own right).

I really can't see anything 'really satisfying' about last night's win. We let perhaps the worst team in FCS hang around the entire game. It was ugly and frustrating.

We’re they ever within 14 with the ball? I thought the margin pretty much went 21, 14, 21, 14. Hang around maybe means no blowout but at no point in the second half was that game in jeopardy. We should have hurried up a bit, used our time outs and jammed that last score in, so we could claim a 21 point victory.

Why? The spread was 37. What difference does winning by 14 or 21 make when a team has clearly underperformed expectations?

What if the Owls had tried to get into the endzone in garbage time, and TSU successfully prevented such a meaningless score? At that point scoring again means nothing and not scoring, when trying to, is demoralizing.

I am just guessing that the naysayers would be more satisfied with a 21 point victory than 14? If people cannot enjoy that comfortable win and offensive explosion, then why follow the team and sport at all?

(09-26-2021 09:20 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The offense was fine last night. … We did about the same to TSU as what Baylor did to them offensively.

Not so sure about that, Baylor was up 42-0 at the half and I am not sure whether they punted…

A bad football team beat a another bad football team at HRS last night.

As all would say, ugly wins are better than pretty losses. A W is a W. Good confidence booster for the offense to go up against a really porous defense with horrible gap control and fundamentals.

TSU is really bad but had a QB and a WR that could make some plays. Concerning that Rice D did not make any adjustments to their only two playmakers as others on TSU offense could be ignored.

Just as Rice won’t see another Arkansas or Texas the rest of the season, they won’t see a TSU either.

So Miss is a bad team too missing their starting QB so there is a decent chance for a W. Other than maybe W. Kentucky or absent injuries to other teams, hard to see W’s against any of the other C-USA opponents right now given their body of work vs. Rice’s body of work so far. Would put over/under on W’s at 3.

(09-26-2021 11:22 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 09:20 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The offense was fine last night. … We did about the same to TSU as what Baylor did to them offensively.

Not so sure about that, Baylor was up 42-0 at the half and I am not sure whether they punted…

Baylor had exactly zero punts in their 66-7 victory over TSU. Baylor scored on every possession except their last (9 of 10) when the clock expired to end the game. So yeah, the Baylor v TSU game was exactly like the Rice v TSU game. Baylor and Rice both had possession when time expired.

And Baylor had a fumble return of ~95 yards for a TD for those trying to do the math.

(09-26-2021 07:58 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Rice had 75 offensive plays last night. I didn't keep track but I'd estimate Constantine took the snap on about 3/4 of those plays. He threw 23 passes so that's roughly 31 runs and 23 passes when he was the QB. McCaffrey was the other 1/4, and he was 100 percent run.

That's a little misleading because McCaffrey was in on a few obvious rushing plays (goalline plays, running out the clock plays, etc.).

But again as I've said a few times now, we're not a pound the rock offense when Constantine is the QB.

If McCaffrey had been unable to play, Rice, with Constantine, most assuredly would have run the ball on those "other" plays, but just not as effectively.

Conclusion: Rice still would have been a "pound the rock" offense, no matter the QB.

(09-26-2021 11:23 AM)owl40 Wrote:  A bad football team beat a another bad football team at HRS last night.

There are 128 FCS teams. Sagarin ranks TSU as #120. That means that 249 out of 258 Division I teams are better.

Rice, at home, beat that team by just 14.

This is Year #4 with Bloomgren.

(09-26-2021 11:22 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 09:20 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The offense was fine last night. … We did about the same to TSU as what Baylor did to them offensively.

Not so sure about that, Baylor was up 42-0 at the half and I am not sure whether they punted…

(09-26-2021 01:05 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 07:58 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Rice had 75 offensive plays last night. I didn't keep track but I'd estimate Constantine took the snap on about 3/4 of those plays. He threw 23 passes so that's roughly 31 runs and 23 passes when he was the QB. McCaffrey was the other 1/4, and he was 100 percent run.

That's a little misleading because McCaffrey was in on a few obvious rushing plays (goalline plays, running out the clock plays, etc.).

But again as I've said a few times now, we're not a pound the rock offense when Constantine is the QB.

If McCaffrey had been unable to play, Rice, with Constantine, most assuredly would have run the ball on those "other" plays, but just not as effectively.

Conclusion: Rice still would have been a "pound the rock" offense, no matter the QB.

Baylor 66 points (1 defensive touchdown on a 97 yard fumble return), 0 punts, 33 1st Downs, 69 plays-714 yards
Rice 48 points, 3 punts, 30 1st Downs, 75 plays-620 yards

Yes, Baylor's numbers were marginally better. And obviously, their defense was much better.

The 2nd punt by Rice was because of a bad play by Constantine. He could have easily scrambled for a 1st down, but instead chose to pull up and perhaps pass the ball, then did a sad spin move to try to escape a sack which he did not. It was easily his worst play of the game. He runs the ball and Rice gets a 1st down and likely another score.

The people trying to put down Rice's offensive effort yesterday are nuts. Yes, the defense was bad. But UH only scored 45 points with a punt return TD (and had 422 yards) against Grambling - who I bet will lose to TSU this year.

We have a new OC, and we're no longer going to be a pound the rock team with Constantine. But I guess Rice folks are just too stubborn to figure that out.

(09-26-2021 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 10:29 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-26-2021 10:07 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Any guess on the attendance?

Per the posted box score, the "attendance" was 18,326.

Maybe you should have asked how many "butts in seats" last night? I'd guess less than many local high school games this weekend.

So basically, about 14,000 people who had tickets, mostly season ticket holders, elected not to attend.

And even with that, 5 minutes before halftime all hamburgers, hotdogs and pizza were sold out , leaving only a long chik fil a line. More Pizzas eventually arrived

(09-26-2021 02:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The people trying to put down Rice's offensive effort yesterday are nuts. Yes, the defense was bad. But UH only scored 45 points with a punt return TD (and had 422 yards) against Grambling - who I bet will lose to TSU this year.

We have a new OC, and we're no longer going to be a pound the rock team with Constantine. But I guess Rice folks are just too stubborn to figure that out.

I'm not trying to put down Rice's offensive effort yesterday, I am trying to contextualize it. When you contextualize it, Rice's offensive effort was all right. TSU is a bad team with a bad defense. Scoring 48 points against them in 4 quarters is nothing to write home about. I am pleased that Rice was able to get some longer runs, that Constantine was moving out of the pocket more and hitting receivers. But doing that against TSU just really isn't a great judge for how well the offense will work against anyone else on Rice's schedule.

Moreover, it will take more than one game for me to believe that the offense has changed in any material way.

Through 4 games it's alittle hard for me to judge this team, as our competition has been either very strong or extraordinarily weak. It appears the offense has regained some confidence. We seem to have a capable and experienced QB, and we've demonstrated a willingness (hopefully) to not ONLY pound the rock.
Unfortunately, the other 2 facets of the game, which we've lately depended on, seem to have fallen apart.
I question the competence of our new special teams coach, who's taken Lembo's stellar work and completely wasted it.
I have to assume that injuries and losing our top 2 players (Carroll and Blaze) have taken their toll on the defense. If we get the defense we saw for 3 qtrs against Arkansas, we could end up 6-6 or 7-5 (don't see us beating La Tech or UTSA). If our defense keeps up its current trend, we may not win 1 or 2 more.
We really need Schuman and Chamberlain back, and we need intensive focus on the kickers.

Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

(09-27-2021 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

We have spent considerably more money for Bloomgren (salary, recruiting budget, administrative staff) than we ever did for Bailiff - with basically the same results.

(09-27-2021 10:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

We have spent considerably more money for Bloomgren (salary, recruiting budget, administrative staff) than we ever did for Bailiff - with basically the same results.

I don't think it's so much what we spend on a head coach--although we need to pay what it takes to get one whose values and philosophy are a good fit--as it is what we spend on recruiting, practice facilities, assistants/analysts/quality control personnel, and the like.

(09-26-2021 07:58 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  But again as I've said a few times now, we're not a pound the rock offense when Constantine is the QB.

Actually, Constantine is more a drop-back passer than any other of our QBs (except maybe Green), and drop-back passing is the favored approach in "pound the rock" offenses. McCaffrey and JoVoni would be the QBs who don't fit the stereotypical "pound the rock" approach.

(09-27-2021 10:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

We have spent considerably more money for Bloomgren (salary, recruiting budget, administrative staff) than we ever did for Bailiff - with basically the same results.

In Bailiff's worst 3 seasons at Rice, he was 6-30 (16.7% wins) with either 0 or 1 of those wins against FCS opponents (depending on whether you are counting 2007 or 2016 as the 3-9 season). So let's say in Bailiff's worst 3 seasons, Bailiff won 15.5% of his games against FBS programs.

In Bloomgren's career at Rice, he is 8-26 (23.5% wins), but that is with 2 FCS victories. So in his career, Bloomgren has won 18.8% of his games against FBS programs.

To date, ignoring FCS opponents, from a won-loss percentage, Bloomgren's career at Rice has been indistinguishable from Bailiff's worst 3 seasons.

(09-27-2021 12:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

We have spent considerably more money for Bloomgren (salary, recruiting budget, administrative staff) than we ever did for Bailiff - with basically the same results.

In Bailiff's worst 3 seasons at Rice, he was 6-30 (16.7% wins) with either 0 or 1 of those wins against FCS opponents (depending on whether you are counting 2007 or 2016 as the 3-9 season). So let's say in Bailiff's worst 3 seasons, Bailiff won 15.5% of his games against FBS programs.

In Bloomgren's career at Rice, he is 8-26 (23.5% wins), but that is with 2 FCS victories. So in his career, Bloomgren has won 18.8% of his games against FBS programs.

To date, ignoring FCS opponents, from a won-loss percentage, Bloomgren's career at Rice has been indistinguishable from Bailiff's worst 3 seasons.

Love your stats mining, Big.

(09-27-2021 12:32 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:22 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(09-27-2021 10:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Looks like what we showed was that if we spent 2-5 times what our opponents spend on football, that we can likely consistently beat them. Or said differently, if we spent P5 money (ex scholarships and academics) we could dominate g5. For those that think we should drop down, know that we would simply sink to be 'competitive' at times with this level... as we are now sometimes 'competitive' with CUSA.

We have spent considerably more money for Bloomgren (salary, recruiting budget, administrative staff) than we ever did for Bailiff - with basically the same results.

In Bailiff's worst 3 seasons at Rice, he was 6-30 (16.7% wins) with either 0 or 1 of those wins against FCS opponents (depending on whether you are counting 2007 or 2016 as the 3-9 season). So let's say in Bailiff's worst 3 seasons, Bailiff won 15.5% of his games against FBS programs.

In Bloomgren's career at Rice, he is 8-26 (23.5% wins), but that is with 2 FCS victories. So in his career, Bloomgren has won 18.8% of his games against FBS programs.

To date, ignoring FCS opponents, from a won-loss percentage, Bloomgren's career at Rice has been indistinguishable from Bailiff's worst 3 seasons.

Ray Alborn's worst three year stretch was 5-28 (I was there). We've still got space to go before rock bottom.