Thanks for the report from someone who was there in person. I can’t say this enough. People who haven’t gone to a Rice game in decades are not experts on what is happening in Rice athletics.

(02-26-2023 07:45 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Thanks for the report from someone who was there in person. I can’t say this enough. People who haven’t gone to a Rice game in decades are not experts on what is happening in Rice athletics.

I have been to many Rice games over many decades, but none recently. I rely on this forum for insight into our teams. I really appreciate the reporting from those both in the know and at the games.

You’re a fan, OO. And you make that clear in your posts. We need more like you, to be honest.

Thank you for the extra color of the team, although you are always optimistic.

I work in hedge fund industry, and Rice U have about X00 million invested in our fund. we made about 7~12% per year in last several years. I really wish they could invest these gain(and no need to pay tax) to athletic, such as Baseball. I wish we could back to the era that ranked top 10.

(02-26-2023 02:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. First off, we were playing one of, if not the best team in college baseball; a team loaded with elite talent and playing flawless defense. Second, we were only not competitive in one game, and even that game was close until the 7th inning. We outplayed Stanford the first game, and lost because of one inning of bad infield defense. Today's finale hurt because we were hitting really well early and left a bunch of runners on base-- largely because we had an extra hole in our lineup with Garibay out. I'm glad Jose made the move to have Rojo take over SS for Johnson, who showed no range whatsoever and dropped a DP ball in today's first game which resulted in Stanford's game-breaking inning. Rojo looked so much better defensively in the finale.

The biggest negative I took away from this series is the strikeout frequency and, as was the case last year, the ridiculously high number of strike 3 looking (many of which were fastball over the middle of the plate). Yes, Stanford has several very good pitchers, but you cannot strike out 38 times over a 3-game series and expect to win. There needs to be some serious hitting instruction going on that has batters changing their approach at the plate, particularly when they get two strikes on them. We need to stop looking for walks and, instead, go up to the plate looking to get a hit. Be aggressive. Swing at first pitch fastballs down broadway instead of letting the pitcher get ahead in the count.

Another pet peeve which hasn't changed with the new pitching coach-- the majority of Stanford's hits all weekend came when they were behind in the count 0-2 or 1-2. I'm not advocating wasting pitches, BUT why do we continue to throw fastballs in the zone when ahead in the count? Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. You're simply letting the hitter off the hook.

On the positive side, I thought Smith, McCracken and Rodriguez all looked good on the mound against a very potent Stanford lineup. And while Long was hit hard for long outs, he did pitch 3.1 shutout innings for us. Not sure why he didn't get the start. Unfortunately, both Linskey and Raj had uncharacteristic control problems, but IMO (and hope) that was more an aberration than the norm.

Smiggy and Becker are struggling badly, and Walsh still cannot come close to hitting a curveball. Stanford clearly had the scouting report and threw him a steady diet of curveballs all series. His only two hits were on fastballs when ahead in the count. To state the obvious, we can ill-afford to lose Garibay for any length of time. The good news and early diagnosis is that it's just a bad bruise on his throwing shoulder. Apparently, as he leaped up over the wall to rob the HR and swung his arm back down, the momentum turned his body and his shoulder crashed against the wall. Fingers crossed he's back by Minute Maid.

(02-26-2023 10:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You’re a fan, OO. And you make that clear in your posts. We need more like you, to be honest.

And more like you, FBO.

(02-26-2023 02:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. First off, we were playing one of, if not the best team in college baseball; a team loaded with elite talent and playing flawless defense. Second, we were only not competitive in one game, and even that game was close until the 7th inning. We outplayed Stanford the first game, and lost because of one inning of bad infield defense. Today's finale hurt because we were hitting really well early and left a bunch of runners on base-- largely because we had an extra hole in our lineup with Garibay out. I'm glad Jose made the move to have Rojo take over SS for Johnson, who showed no range whatsoever and dropped a DP ball in today's first game which resulted in Stanford's game-breaking inning. Rojo looked so much better defensively in the finale.

The biggest negative I took away from this series is the strikeout frequency and, as was the case last year, the ridiculously high number of strike 3 looking (many of which were fastball over the middle of the plate). Yes, Stanford has several very good pitchers, but you cannot strike out 38 times over a 3-game series and expect to win. There needs to be some serious hitting instruction going on that has batters changing their approach at the plate, particularly when they get two strikes on them. We need to stop looking for walks and, instead, go up to the plate looking to get a hit. Be aggressive. Swing at first pitch fastballs down broadway instead of letting the pitcher get ahead in the count.

Another pet peeve which hasn't changed with the new pitching coach-- the majority of Stanford's hits all weekend came when they were behind in the count 0-2 or 1-2. I'm not advocating wasting pitches, BUT why do we continue to throw fastballs in the zone when ahead in the count? Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. You're simply letting the hitter off the hook.

On the positive side, I thought Smith, McCracken and Rodriguez all looked good on the mound against a very potent Stanford lineup. And while Long was hit hard for long outs, he did pitch 3.1 shutout innings for us. Not sure why he didn't get the start. Unfortunately, both Linskey and Raj had uncharacteristic control problems, but IMO (and hope) that was more an aberration than the norm.

Smiggy and Becker are struggling badly, and Walsh still cannot come close to hitting a curveball. Stanford clearly had the scouting report and threw him a steady diet of curveballs all series. His only two hits were on fastballs when ahead in the count. To state the obvious, we can ill-afford to lose Garibay for any length of time. The good news and early diagnosis is that it's just a bad bruise on his throwing shoulder. Apparently, as he leaped up over the wall to rob the HR and swung his arm back down, the momentum turned his body and his shoulder crashed against the wall. Fingers crossed he's back by Minute Maid.

So, you think this Owl team is ready for prime time, i.e., NCAA tournament?

The points you make are similar to ones that I made during the 3 games.

1) The Owls have bad innings that lose them games with some frequency. Elite teams don't do that.
2) The Owls leave a lot of runners on base in key situations. The Cardinal were able to avoid doing that and it won for them in the 2 competitive games, i.e., primetime.
3) Strikeout frequency, particularly in key situations, i.e., runners in scoring positions with less than 2 outs. I will say I think this year's team looks better than last year's in these situations, but it's still an area that needs much improvement.
4) Pitch selection with 2 strikes. Elite teams take advantage of mistakes like this. See Stanford.

Yes, there is talent on this team which is why they have been competitive in 2 of the 3 games in each weekend series, but being competitive is not being ready for primetime, i.e., being NCAA tournament caliber.

(02-26-2023 11:23 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 02:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. First off, we were playing one of, if not the best team in college baseball; a team loaded with elite talent and playing flawless defense. Second, we were only not competitive in one game, and even that game was close until the 7th inning. We outplayed Stanford the first game, and lost because of one inning of bad infield defense. Today's finale hurt because we were hitting really well early and left a bunch of runners on base-- largely because we had an extra hole in our lineup with Garibay out. I'm glad Jose made the move to have Rojo take over SS for Johnson, who showed no range whatsoever and dropped a DP ball in today's first game which resulted in Stanford's game-breaking inning. Rojo looked so much better defensively in the finale.

The biggest negative I took away from this series is the strikeout frequency and, as was the case last year, the ridiculously high number of strike 3 looking (many of which were fastball over the middle of the plate). Yes, Stanford has several very good pitchers, but you cannot strike out 38 times over a 3-game series and expect to win. There needs to be some serious hitting instruction going on that has batters changing their approach at the plate, particularly when they get two strikes on them. We need to stop looking for walks and, instead, go up to the plate looking to get a hit. Be aggressive. Swing at first pitch fastballs down broadway instead of letting the pitcher get ahead in the count.

Another pet peeve which hasn't changed with the new pitching coach-- the majority of Stanford's hits all weekend came when they were behind in the count 0-2 or 1-2. I'm not advocating wasting pitches, BUT why do we continue to throw fastballs in the zone when ahead in the count? Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. You're simply letting the hitter off the hook.

On the positive side, I thought Smith, McCracken and Rodriguez all looked good on the mound against a very potent Stanford lineup. And while Long was hit hard for long outs, he did pitch 3.1 shutout innings for us. Not sure why he didn't get the start. Unfortunately, both Linskey and Raj had uncharacteristic control problems, but IMO (and hope) that was more an aberration than the norm.

Smiggy and Becker are struggling badly, and Walsh still cannot come close to hitting a curveball. Stanford clearly had the scouting report and threw him a steady diet of curveballs all series. His only two hits were on fastballs when ahead in the count. To state the obvious, we can ill-afford to lose Garibay for any length of time. The good news and early diagnosis is that it's just a bad bruise on his throwing shoulder. Apparently, as he leaped up over the wall to rob the HR and swung his arm back down, the momentum turned his body and his shoulder crashed against the wall. Fingers crossed he's back by Minute Maid.

So, you think this Owl team is ready for prime time, i.e., NCAA tournament?

The points you make are similar to ones that I made during the 3 games.

1) The Owls have bad innings that lose them games with some frequency. Elite teams don't do that.
2) The Owls leave a lot of runners on base in key situations. The Cardinal were able to avoid doing that and it won for them in the 2 competitive games, i.e., primetime.
3) Strikeout frequency, particularly in key situations, i.e., runners in scoring positions with less than 2 outs. I will say I think this year's team looks better than last year's in these situations, but it's still an area that needs much improvement.
4) Pitch selection with 2 strikes. Elite teams take advantage of mistakes like this. See Stanford.

Yes, there is talent on this team which is why they have been competitive in 2 of the 3 games in each weekend series, but being competitive is not being ready for primetime, i.e., being NCAA tournament caliber.

Whomever said this team was NCAA tournament caliber yet? And since when does "prime time" equate to being a Top 40 caliber club? No one with any knowledge of this squad predicted getting into the NCAAs this year. No one in their right mind thought we'd be an "elite team" this year after the past 4 years. The hope was that we'd be competitive, play better fundamental baseball and finish the year over .500. From what I've seen the over our first 7 games, we are a vastly improved club over the past 3 - 4 seasons, and I suspect we'll be very competitive in CUSA play. Again, we play an absolutely brutal OOC schedule this year. Oh, BTW, Stanford stranded even more runners on base than we did throughout the series.

Frankly, I was surprised we played so well in game 2 yesterday; not only because Garibay was out of the lineup, but with the situation surrounding the doubleheader. During the 50 minute break between games, Stanford players went to their clubhouse to warm up, relax, change uniforms (perhaps even shower?) and grab a quick bite; whereas the Rice players ate their boxed lunch in the cold, standing up in the dugout and bullpen.

(02-26-2023 07:45 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Thanks for the report from someone who was there in person. I can’t say this enough. People who haven’t gone to a Rice game in decades are not experts on what is happening in Rice athletics.

I assume your snarky comment is aimed at me since I started both weekend game threads and provided the majority of the in-game comments. Even if it wasn't, I still find your comment snarky, pompous and self-serving.

First of all, you don't know me and have no way of knowing how many games I've attend over the past "decades". I can assure you it's more than many of the posters on this Board. While I now live 200+ miles from the campus and haven't attended games at a rate over the last half-decade as I did in the previous 4 1/2 decades, I still have season tickets (4) to the big 3 sports + volleyball and have had season tickets to women's basketball, attend when my schedule allows, and watch the broadcasts when I can't.

Please show me the Parliament rules that say one must attend an event to comment on it. Yes, in person attendance allows one to see things you might not see on the broadcast, but watching the broadcast allows you to see things you won't see in person. See for example the SB / catcher's interference call a few games. Watching the broadcast allowed me to go back and watch the play multiple times, something an in-person attendee could not do unless they were also streaming, which is unlikely.

And show me one place where I've ever claimed to be an "expert" on what is happening in Rice athletics.

If you don't like my comments, don't read them or block me. I could care less. But don't imply I don't have the right to offer my opinion on a fan board and not expect pushback.

(02-26-2023 11:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 11:23 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 02:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. First off, we were playing one of, if not the best team in college baseball; a team loaded with elite talent and playing flawless defense. Second, we were only not competitive in one game, and even that game was close until the 7th inning. We outplayed Stanford the first game, and lost because of one inning of bad infield defense. Today's finale hurt because we were hitting really well early and left a bunch of runners on base-- largely because we had an extra hole in our lineup with Garibay out. I'm glad Jose made the move to have Rojo take over SS for Johnson, who showed no range whatsoever and dropped a DP ball in today's first game which resulted in Stanford's game-breaking inning. Rojo looked so much better defensively in the finale.

The biggest negative I took away from this series is the strikeout frequency and, as was the case last year, the ridiculously high number of strike 3 looking (many of which were fastball over the middle of the plate). Yes, Stanford has several very good pitchers, but you cannot strike out 38 times over a 3-game series and expect to win. There needs to be some serious hitting instruction going on that has batters changing their approach at the plate, particularly when they get two strikes on them. We need to stop looking for walks and, instead, go up to the plate looking to get a hit. Be aggressive. Swing at first pitch fastballs down broadway instead of letting the pitcher get ahead in the count.

Another pet peeve which hasn't changed with the new pitching coach-- the majority of Stanford's hits all weekend came when they were behind in the count 0-2 or 1-2. I'm not advocating wasting pitches, BUT why do we continue to throw fastballs in the zone when ahead in the count? Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. You're simply letting the hitter off the hook.

On the positive side, I thought Smith, McCracken and Rodriguez all looked good on the mound against a very potent Stanford lineup. And while Long was hit hard for long outs, he did pitch 3.1 shutout innings for us. Not sure why he didn't get the start. Unfortunately, both Linskey and Raj had uncharacteristic control problems, but IMO (and hope) that was more an aberration than the norm.

Smiggy and Becker are struggling badly, and Walsh still cannot come close to hitting a curveball. Stanford clearly had the scouting report and threw him a steady diet of curveballs all series. His only two hits were on fastballs when ahead in the count. To state the obvious, we can ill-afford to lose Garibay for any length of time. The good news and early diagnosis is that it's just a bad bruise on his throwing shoulder. Apparently, as he leaped up over the wall to rob the HR and swung his arm back down, the momentum turned his body and his shoulder crashed against the wall. Fingers crossed he's back by Minute Maid.

So, you think this Owl team is ready for prime time, i.e., NCAA tournament?

The points you make are similar to ones that I made during the 3 games.

1) The Owls have bad innings that lose them games with some frequency. Elite teams don't do that.
2) The Owls leave a lot of runners on base in key situations. The Cardinal were able to avoid doing that and it won for them in the 2 competitive games, i.e., primetime.
3) Strikeout frequency, particularly in key situations, i.e., runners in scoring positions with less than 2 outs. I will say I think this year's team looks better than last year's in these situations, but it's still an area that needs much improvement.
4) Pitch selection with 2 strikes. Elite teams take advantage of mistakes like this. See Stanford.

Yes, there is talent on this team which is why they have been competitive in 2 of the 3 games in each weekend series, but being competitive is not being ready for primetime, i.e., being NCAA tournament caliber.

Whomever said this team was NCAA tournament caliber yet? And since when does "prime time" equate to being a Top 40 caliber club? No one with any knowledge of this squad predicted getting into the NCAAs this year. No one in their right mind thought we'd be an "elite team" this year after the past 4 years. The hope was that we'd be competitive, play better fundamental baseball and finish the year over .500. From what I've seen the over our first 7 games, we are a vastly improved club over the past 3 - 4 seasons, and I suspect we'll be very competitive in CUSA play. Again, we play an absolutely brutal OOC schedule this year. Oh, BTW, Stanford stranded even more runners on base than we did throughout the series.

Frankly, I was surprised we played so well in game 2 yesterday; not only because Garibay was out of the lineup, but with the situation surrounding the doubleheader. During the 50 minute break between games, Stanford players went to their clubhouse to warm up, relax, change uniforms (perhaps even shower?) and grab a quick bite; whereas the Rice players ate their boxed lunch in the cold, standing up in the dugout and bullpen.

I know better than to argue with you. Thanks for putting me in my place even though you basically agreed with my points.

(02-26-2023 12:02 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 11:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 11:23 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 02:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. First off, we were playing one of, if not the best team in college baseball; a team loaded with elite talent and playing flawless defense. Second, we were only not competitive in one game, and even that game was close until the 7th inning. We outplayed Stanford the first game, and lost because of one inning of bad infield defense. Today's finale hurt because we were hitting really well early and left a bunch of runners on base-- largely because we had an extra hole in our lineup with Garibay out. I'm glad Jose made the move to have Rojo take over SS for Johnson, who showed no range whatsoever and dropped a DP ball in today's first game which resulted in Stanford's game-breaking inning. Rojo looked so much better defensively in the finale.

The biggest negative I took away from this series is the strikeout frequency and, as was the case last year, the ridiculously high number of strike 3 looking (many of which were fastball over the middle of the plate). Yes, Stanford has several very good pitchers, but you cannot strike out 38 times over a 3-game series and expect to win. There needs to be some serious hitting instruction going on that has batters changing their approach at the plate, particularly when they get two strikes on them. We need to stop looking for walks and, instead, go up to the plate looking to get a hit. Be aggressive. Swing at first pitch fastballs down broadway instead of letting the pitcher get ahead in the count.

Another pet peeve which hasn't changed with the new pitching coach-- the majority of Stanford's hits all weekend came when they were behind in the count 0-2 or 1-2. I'm not advocating wasting pitches, BUT why do we continue to throw fastballs in the zone when ahead in the count? Sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense. You're simply letting the hitter off the hook.

On the positive side, I thought Smith, McCracken and Rodriguez all looked good on the mound against a very potent Stanford lineup. And while Long was hit hard for long outs, he did pitch 3.1 shutout innings for us. Not sure why he didn't get the start. Unfortunately, both Linskey and Raj had uncharacteristic control problems, but IMO (and hope) that was more an aberration than the norm.

Smiggy and Becker are struggling badly, and Walsh still cannot come close to hitting a curveball. Stanford clearly had the scouting report and threw him a steady diet of curveballs all series. His only two hits were on fastballs when ahead in the count. To state the obvious, we can ill-afford to lose Garibay for any length of time. The good news and early diagnosis is that it's just a bad bruise on his throwing shoulder. Apparently, as he leaped up over the wall to rob the HR and swung his arm back down, the momentum turned his body and his shoulder crashed against the wall. Fingers crossed he's back by Minute Maid.

So, you think this Owl team is ready for prime time, i.e., NCAA tournament?

The points you make are similar to ones that I made during the 3 games.

1) The Owls have bad innings that lose them games with some frequency. Elite teams don't do that.
2) The Owls leave a lot of runners on base in key situations. The Cardinal were able to avoid doing that and it won for them in the 2 competitive games, i.e., primetime.
3) Strikeout frequency, particularly in key situations, i.e., runners in scoring positions with less than 2 outs. I will say I think this year's team looks better than last year's in these situations, but it's still an area that needs much improvement.
4) Pitch selection with 2 strikes. Elite teams take advantage of mistakes like this. See Stanford.

Yes, there is talent on this team which is why they have been competitive in 2 of the 3 games in each weekend series, but being competitive is not being ready for primetime, i.e., being NCAA tournament caliber.

Whomever said this team was NCAA tournament caliber yet? And since when does "prime time" equate to being a Top 40 caliber club? No one with any knowledge of this squad predicted getting into the NCAAs this year. No one in their right mind thought we'd be an "elite team" this year after the past 4 years. The hope was that we'd be competitive, play better fundamental baseball and finish the year over .500. From what I've seen the over our first 7 games, we are a vastly improved club over the past 3 - 4 seasons, and I suspect we'll be very competitive in CUSA play. Again, we play an absolutely brutal OOC schedule this year. Oh, BTW, Stanford stranded even more runners on base than we did throughout the series.

Frankly, I was surprised we played so well in game 2 yesterday; not only because Garibay was out of the lineup, but with the situation surrounding the doubleheader. During the 50 minute break between games, Stanford players went to their clubhouse to warm up, relax, change uniforms (perhaps even shower?) and grab a quick bite; whereas the Rice players ate their boxed lunch in the cold, standing up in the dugout and bullpen.

So, you don't think they are ready for prime time.

W

I don't agree with your definition of prime time. And, again, you don't go from winning just a third of your games in one season to being a legitimate NCAA tournament caliber team the next. That is just a woefully unrealistic expectation. This team is vastly improved and this year should be a positive step toward getting us to where we want to be. We still don't have the depth to withstand losing guys like Garibay or Stratton. We need them both back healthy.

(02-26-2023 11:59 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 07:45 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Thanks for the report from someone who was there in person. I can’t say this enough. People who haven’t gone to a Rice game in decades are not experts on what is happening in Rice athletics.

I assume your snarky comment is aimed at me since I started both weekend game threads and provided the majority of the in-game comments. Even if it wasn't, I still find your comment snarky, pompous and self-serving.

First of all, you don't know me and have no way of knowing how many games I've attend over the past "decades". I can assure you it's more than many of the posters on this Board. While I now live 200+ miles from the campus and haven't attended games at a rate over the last half-decade as I did in the previous 4 1/2 decades, I still have season tickets (4) to the big 3 sports + volleyball and have had season tickets to women's basketball, attend when my schedule allows, and watch the broadcasts when I can't.

Please show me the Parliament rules that say one must attend an event to comment on it. Yes, in person attendance allows one to see things you might not see on the broadcast, but watching the broadcast allows you to see things you won't see in person. See for example the SB / catcher's interference call a few games. Watching the broadcast allowed me to go back and watch the play multiple times, something an in-person attendee could not do unless they were also streaming, which is unlikely.

And show me one place where I've ever claimed to be an "expert" on what is happening in Rice athletics.

If you don't like my comments, don't read them or block me. I could care less. But don't imply I don't have the right to offer my opinion on a fan board and not expect pushback.

Nope, wasn’t directed to you. But I blocked you awhile ago if that makes you feel better.

And this whole board’s’ definition is being snarky, pompous and self serving.

(02-26-2023 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 10:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  You’re a fan, OO. And you make that clear in your posts. We need more like you, to be honest.

And more like you, FBO.

I'm happy to have Tomball Owl, too.

As stated ad nauseum on other threads that I’m sure many are sick of reading just one person’s Groundhog Day viewpoint(s) on, we can argue if big donors are the chicken or the egg but it is a two-way street problem, not solely a big donor problem. Of course a T Boone Pickens, Fertitta, etc. like character could emerge to save the day but that is unlikely as most don’t want to throw good $ after bad. Some hope for a JK Hail Mary on leveraging academics and H-Town eyeballs in realignment to Rice’s benefit but it is just that…a Hail Mary.

Rice has plenty of big $ donors. They want to see product on the field/court improve and also the lukewarm (not cold, but also not hot) support of Athletics by the administration improve. It has been a stalemate for decades funding a low eight-figure loss each year as both want to see the product on field/court break the logjam to bring in the bigger time commitments from both sides needed to compete at the level that most here aspire to. But as we all have seen, that on-the-field/court progress is not happening in the $ sports. So Owl stakeholders sit in suspended animation waiting for either a) the product and fanbase to atrophy to such a point where shutting it down is the logical choice or b) waiting for the product to be competitive (not top 25…how about top 50 or 75?). Very few not named JK don’t believe in the current $ coaching leadership will get the on-the-field/court product to where it needs to be to make those investments a reality.

Datapoints in those $ sports are a body-of-work now. Hence, the situation we are in today with emotions of hope, optimism, anger, apathy, fatigue, or frustration depending upon who you talk to on which day/game of-the-week.

Face it. Rice is simply not interested in fielding a competitive athletic program.

When I arrived in the mid-1960s, Rice was a member of the SWC and at least tried to be competitive, although not always successfully.

By the mid 1980s, Rice was no longer interested in being competitive, and made that obvious. The result was exclusion from the XII and later the Mountain West, eventually a move to CUSA, and left behind as other CUSA members moved up. Other than Wayne Graham for a couple of decades in baseball, and isolated women's sports, the trajectory of Rice athletics has been steadily downward since the hiring of Bo Hagan as head football coach and athletic director in 1967.

(02-26-2023 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Face it. Rice is simply not interested in fielding a competitive athletic program.

When I arrived in the mid-1960s, Rice was a member of the SWC and at least tried to be competitive, although not always successfully.

By the mid 1980s, Rice was no longer interested in being competitive, and made that obvious. The result was exclusion from the XII and later the Mountain West, eventually a move to CUSA, and left behind as other CUSA members moved up. Other than Wayne Graham for a couple of decades in baseball, and isolated women's sports, the trajectory of Rice athletics has been steadily downward since the hiring of Bo Hagan as head football coach and athletic director in 1967.

Can we please move your repetitive griping into the smack forum or at least a relevant thread? Seriously. Why are you posting this-- which we've all heard from you at least a hundred times over the past several years-- in Rice vs. Stanford game thread?

(02-26-2023 09:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2023 09:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Face it. Rice is simply not interested in fielding a competitive athletic program.
When I arrived in the mid-1960s, Rice was a member of the SWC and at least tried to be competitive, although not always successfully.
By the mid 1980s, Rice was no longer interested in being competitive, and made that obvious. The result was exclusion from the XII and later the Mountain West, eventually a move to CUSA, and left behind as other CUSA members moved up. Other than Wayne Graham for a couple of decades in baseball, and isolated women's sports, the trajectory of Rice athletics has been steadily downward since the hiring of Bo Hagan as head football coach and athletic director in 1967.

Can we please move your repetitive griping into the smack forum or at least a relevant thread? Seriously. Why are you posting this-- which we've all heard from you at least a hundred times over the past several years-- in Rice vs. Stanford game thread?

Last I checked, it was still a free country. If you can post your Pollyanna crap, I can post this.

(02-25-2023 10:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Owls go quietly in the 9th with a single and three Ks. Stanford wins 7-4

Definitely not ready for prime time.

Well, Lamar is tough....