The first month of the season is notoriously bad for most national polls and ranking systems. In September, 99% of them incorporate some input from last season. This makes even less sense today given the high turnover among both players and coaches.

I did find an analytical ranking that reflects very closely with what I’d call the “eye test” Of paying attention to quite a few games in the American Conference (and elsewhere) this season.
It’s called the ESPN “Team Efficiency” and it appears to be one component of the ESPN FPI (but FPI includes historical data to last season and probably some other factors outside of Team Efficiency)

After two weeks:
Rice “held their own” for a half against an elite program (one which proved to be top tier this week), and then beat a power conference rival (who had just beaten one of the favorites in our conference last week).
To my eye test we’ve played so far like a top five AAC team.

According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.
Others:
Texas (5) - beat Ala
Alabama (25)

Other Top non A5 teams
Texas State (27) -beat Bay
Toledo (33) - top MAC
AFA (41) - top MWC
Georgia Southern (44) - beat UAB
Miami-O (48)
Utah State (52)

And:
WKU (68) - top CUSA
Houston (80)
Baylor (103)
UConn (125) - plays Rice next month
Arkansas State (132) - lost to Memphis
Nevada (133) - last in FBS

All of the AAC:


https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  The first month of the season is notoriously bad for most national polls and ranking systems. In September, 99% of them incorporate some input from last season. This makes even less sense today given the high turnover among both players and coaches.

I did find an analytical ranking that reflects very closely with what I’d call the “eye test” Of paying attention to quite a few games in the American Conference (and elsewhere) this season.
It’s called the ESPN “Team Efficiency” and it appears to be one component of the ESPN FPI (but FPI includes historical data to last season and probably some other factors outside of Team Efficiency)

After two weeks:
Rice “held their own” for a half against an elite program (one which proved to be top tier this week), and then beat a power conference rival (who had just beaten one of the favorites in our conference last week).
To my eye test we’ve played so far like a top five AAC team.

According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.
Others:
Texas (5) - beat Ala
Alabama (25)

Other Top non A5 teams
Texas State (27) -beat Bay
Toledo (33) - top MAC
AFA (41) - top MWC
Georgia Southern (44) - beat UAB
Miami-O (48)
Utah State (52)

And:
WKU (68) - top CUSA
Houston (80)
Baylor (103)
UConn (125) - plays Rice next month
Arkansas State (132) - lost to Memphis
Nevada (133) - last in FBS

All of the AAC:


https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

Not sure how Temple is ranked above anybody. That got blasted by a lousy Rutgers team yesterday.

(09-10-2023 12:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  The first month of the season is notoriously bad for most national polls and ranking systems. In September, 99% of them incorporate some input from last season. This makes even less sense today given the high turnover among both players and coaches.

I did find an analytical ranking that reflects very closely with what I’d call the “eye test” Of paying attention to quite a few games in the American Conference (and elsewhere) this season.
It’s called the ESPN “Team Efficiency” and it appears to be one component of the ESPN FPI (but FPI includes historical data to last season and probably some other factors outside of Team Efficiency)

After two weeks:
Rice “held their own” for a half against an elite program (one which proved to be top tier this week), and then beat a power conference rival (who had just beaten one of the favorites in our conference last week).
To my eye test we’ve played so far like a top five AAC team.

According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.
Others:
Texas (5) - beat Ala
Alabama (25)

Other Top non A5 teams
Texas State (27) -beat Bay
Toledo (33) - top MAC
AFA (41) - top MWC
Georgia Southern (44) - beat UAB
Miami-O (48)
Utah State (52)

And:
WKU (68) - top CUSA
Houston (80)
Baylor (103)
UConn (125) - plays Rice next month
Arkansas State (132) - lost to Memphis
Nevada (133) - last in FBS

All of the AAC:


https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

Not sure how Temple is ranked above anybody. That got blasted by a lousy Rutgers team yesterday.

Rutgers is now 3-0 with wins over Wagner, Northwestern, and Temple. Not a murderers row, but it probably answers why a loss to Rutgers didn't knock Temple further down. Temple also beat Akron in the opener which likely adds to their ranking this early in the season.

(09-10-2023 12:51 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  The first month of the season is notoriously bad for most national polls and ranking systems. In September, 99% of them incorporate some input from last season. This makes even less sense today given the high turnover among both players and coaches.

I did find an analytical ranking that reflects very closely with what I’d call the “eye test” Of paying attention to quite a few games in the American Conference (and elsewhere) this season.
It’s called the ESPN “Team Efficiency” and it appears to be one component of the ESPN FPI (but FPI includes historical data to last season and probably some other factors outside of Team Efficiency)

After two weeks:
Rice “held their own” for a half against an elite program (one which proved to be top tier this week), and then beat a power conference rival (who had just beaten one of the favorites in our conference last week).
To my eye test we’ve played so far like a top five AAC team.

According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.
Others:
Texas (5) - beat Ala
Alabama (25)

Other Top non A5 teams
Texas State (27) -beat Bay
Toledo (33) - top MAC
AFA (41) - top MWC
Georgia Southern (44) - beat UAB
Miami-O (48)
Utah State (52)

And:
WKU (68) - top CUSA
Houston (80)
Baylor (103)
UConn (125) - plays Rice next month
Arkansas State (132) - lost to Memphis
Nevada (133) - last in FBS

All of the AAC:


https://www.espn.com/college-football/fpi

Not sure how Temple is ranked above anybody. That got blasted by a lousy Rutgers team yesterday.

Rutgers is now 3-0 with wins over Wagner, Northwestern, and Temple. Not a murderers row, but it probably answers why a loss to Rutgers didn't knock Temple further down. Temple also beat Akron in the opener which likely adds to their ranking this early in the season.

Rutgers appears as #26 in this ranking.
One spot behind Alabama and one ahead of Texas State.

I’m sure if Alabama played Rutgers then they’d be favored by double digits. Maybe in that case take Rutgers and the points?

I have been to two games this season - Texas State/Baylor and Rice/Houston. I would rank the first half Rice team easily number one of the four (but maybe second half Rice last).

But Texas State is not 27. No way. I do think Houston is better than Baylor.

(09-10-2023 01:57 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I have been to two games this season - Texas State/Baylor and Rice/Houston. I would rank the first half Rice team easily number one of the four (but maybe second half Rice last).

But Texas State is not 27. No way. I do think Houston is better than Baylor.

I agree Texas State is probably not 27.
Nor is Alabama likely 25. I think UTSA should probably be higher too (maybe with a healthier Harris they would have won more decisively yesterday).
I don’t think Navy is that low.

Most of the other data points I posted look about right to me. Certainly better overall than any other ranking (many of whom still have Rice outside the top 100, I.e, in the bottom quartile)

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Four

(09-10-2023 08:09 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Four

You are both correct

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

And I wasn’t refuting any criticism around coaching.

I was pointing out that we have been wandering in a desert for years when it comes to the most important position on the field. So I don’t necessarily agree that our talent has been there for the past few years because our QB play has been subpar at best. Bad QB play will sink even well coached teams because of how one dimensional it makes you on offense.

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Not sure if the playcalling was that bad. I think our execution suffered in the second half. For example, the fumble. The playcall resulted in a completed pass and the receiver running for YAC and a first down. Good call. Then he got the ball punched out. Not part of the playcall.

We had a lot of bad plays in the second half - dropped passes, missed blocks, missed tackles, shanked punts, turnovers - none of them called for.

(09-11-2023 05:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 12:02 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  According to this ESPN Efficiency Rating:

AAC Top Five:
1 Memphis (23). Unbeaten against weak competition but their defense was smothering in both efforts (for a full game, not just for the first half like ours)
2 SMU (29). One score game against elite competition this week. No problem last week with a team that beat FIU (who beat UNT this week)
3 Tulane (51). Held their own and led in first half against a strong opponent, without their QB1. Tulane will improve once they get healthy.
4 Rice (55). Two strong (but far from perfect) efforts. This team has the talent to beat anyone left on their schedule.
5 UTSA (74). Solid win yesterday against a well regarded (by this ranking) Texas State team. Let the Houston game slip away.

“Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Not sure if the playcalling was that bad. I think our execution suffered in the second half. For example, the fumble. The playcall resulted in a completed pass and the receiver running for YAC and a first down. Good call. Then he got the ball punched out. Not part of the playcall.

We had a lot of bad plays in the second half - dropped passes, missed blocks, missed tackles, shanked punts, turnovers - none of them called for.

Agreed. To blame the play calling is just ludicrous, IMO. We did not go prevent or ultra conservative. And UH made some adjustments with their pass rush in the 2H, putting significantly more pressure on Daniels than they did in the first half. Did we run a bit more in the 2H? Yes, but not overly so, and with a 28-7 lead every coach in football-- college or pro-- is going to try to eat some clock.

(09-11-2023 07:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 05:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 05:39 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  “Has the talent”, sure. That’s the story of the last few years. The talent is there, but not the coaching who can use that talent.

We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Not sure if the playcalling was that bad. I think our execution suffered in the second half. For example, the fumble. The playcall resulted in a completed pass and the receiver running for YAC and a first down. Good call. Then he got the ball punched out. Not part of the playcall.

We had a lot of bad plays in the second half - dropped passes, missed blocks, missed tackles, shanked punts, turnovers - none of them called for.

Agreed. To blame the play calling is just ludicrous, IMO. We did not go prevent or ultra conservative. And UH made some adjustments with their pass rush in the 2H, putting significantly more pressure on Daniels than they did in the first half. Did we run a bit more in the 2H? Yes, but not overly so, and with a 28-7 lead every coach in football-- college or pro-- is going to try to eat some clock.

The fumble and the muffed punt were game changers. We fumbled on the second drive, after a good 18 yard completion, setting up UH with a short field. Then the shanked punt did the same. UH scored with 0:15 seconds left in the 4th quarter. If that punt travels more than 25 yards, even 40 yards, UH starts at their 45 instead of our 40, with 2:49 remaining. Does UH rely on the rush as much as they do in that position?

I think the one, really bad play call, was the 3rd down on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. IIRC, we lined up in our obvious rush package for short yardage despite it being 3rd and 3. We ran Otoviano for no gain.

We did have two 3 and outs in the second half, and no drive with more than 6 plays, despite having drives of 11, 10 (x2), and 7 plays in the first half. So something changed with how we ran the offense, and not in a good way.

(09-11-2023 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 07:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 05:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We have been missing a competent QB the last few years.

I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Not sure if the playcalling was that bad. I think our execution suffered in the second half. For example, the fumble. The playcall resulted in a completed pass and the receiver running for YAC and a first down. Good call. Then he got the ball punched out. Not part of the playcall.

We had a lot of bad plays in the second half - dropped passes, missed blocks, missed tackles, shanked punts, turnovers - none of them called for.

Agreed. To blame the play calling is just ludicrous, IMO. We did not go prevent or ultra conservative. And UH made some adjustments with their pass rush in the 2H, putting significantly more pressure on Daniels than they did in the first half. Did we run a bit more in the 2H? Yes, but not overly so, and with a 28-7 lead every coach in football-- college or pro-- is going to try to eat some clock.

The fumble and the muffed punt were game changers. We fumbled on the second drive, after a good 18 yard completion, setting up UH with a short field. Then the shanked punt did the same. UH scored with 0:15 seconds left in the 4th quarter. If that punt travels more than 25 yards, even 40 yards, UH starts at their 45 instead of our 40, with 2:49 remaining. Does UH rely on the rush as much as they do in that position?

I think the one, really bad play call, was the 3rd down on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. IIRC, we lined up in our obvious rush package for short yardage despite it being 3rd and 3. We ran Otoviano for no gain.

We did have two 3 and outs in the second half, and no drive with more than 6 plays, despite having drives of 11, 10 (x2), and 7 plays in the first half. So something changed with how we ran the offense, and not in a good way.

Or, just maybe, UH made adjustments at halftime. Who would have thought? They started to put more pressure on Daniels, as well as double team McCaffrey.

(09-11-2023 08:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 07:10 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-11-2023 05:42 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-10-2023 07:57 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I saw the playcalling that I saw. We almost lost a game that we were leading by three touchdowns.

Not sure if the playcalling was that bad. I think our execution suffered in the second half. For example, the fumble. The playcall resulted in a completed pass and the receiver running for YAC and a first down. Good call. Then he got the ball punched out. Not part of the playcall.

We had a lot of bad plays in the second half - dropped passes, missed blocks, missed tackles, shanked punts, turnovers - none of them called for.

Agreed. To blame the play calling is just ludicrous, IMO. We did not go prevent or ultra conservative. And UH made some adjustments with their pass rush in the 2H, putting significantly more pressure on Daniels than they did in the first half. Did we run a bit more in the 2H? Yes, but not overly so, and with a 28-7 lead every coach in football-- college or pro-- is going to try to eat some clock.

The fumble and the muffed punt were game changers. We fumbled on the second drive, after a good 18 yard completion, setting up UH with a short field. Then the shanked punt did the same. UH scored with 0:15 seconds left in the 4th quarter. If that punt travels more than 25 yards, even 40 yards, UH starts at their 45 instead of our 40, with 2:49 remaining. Does UH rely on the rush as much as they do in that position?

I think the one, really bad play call, was the 3rd down on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. IIRC, we lined up in our obvious rush package for short yardage despite it being 3rd and 3. We ran Otoviano for no gain.

We did have two 3 and outs in the second half, and no drive with more than 6 plays, despite having drives of 11, 10 (x2), and 7 plays in the first half. So something changed with how we ran the offense, and not in a good way.

Or, just maybe, UH made adjustments at halftime. Who would have thought? They started to put more pressure on Daniels, as well as double team McCaffrey.

I wonder why they didn't start out that way. Did they think they were overhyped?

(09-11-2023 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think the one, really bad play call, was the 3rd down on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. IIRC, we lined up in our obvious rush package for short yardage despite it being 3rd and 3. We ran Otoviano for no gain.
We did have two 3 and outs in the second half, and no drive with more than 6 plays, despite having drives of 11, 10 (x2), and 7 plays in the first half. So something changed with how we ran the offense, and not in a good way.

Lining up in an obvious anything formation, and then doing exactly that, is almost always a bad call.

What changed was how UH defended that offense.

We're on the opposite side of the texas/Rice spread this week, as Sagarin has us as a 35-point favorite (allowing for the home field advantage). Just as they weren't happy with a 27-point win, I wouldn't be thrilled with a 37-10 win either. While I know some of you will come back with "just win baby", TSU just lost to Toledo by 68. Even if their qb is healthy now we should roll these guys.

When you lose by 68, offense MAY be a problem, but it is not the 'obvious' problem.