perunapower wrote: Rice has gotten better yes, but to say their season has been a success because they played lost to harder teams in out of conference is a joke.
They played teams that they couldn't beat: UCLA, TEXAS, Florida State We played teams that we should be beating: UNT, Ark State, Sam Houston State. And we have the same record. Rice won AT UCF, AT UTEP, AT TULSA, AND AT ARMY - Lost to UH by 1.
Now if you want to put Rice on a pedestal and exalt them as the national champions, go right ahead. They are still on the same level as us, regardless of their OOC schedule.
I'm trying to understand what part of ponydawg's post you don't understand. Let me give it a try. We had 3 non conference cream puffs on our schedule and lost badly to 1. Rice had 3 impossible to win non conference games and lost all three yet we both have 5-5 records. If you simply substitute our wins against SHS and ArkState for losses against Texas and Florida State we are looking at 3-7.
I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
perunapower wrote:I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
I love the NTSU getting throttled by UT analogy, especially since NTSU throttled SMU.
Since you claim to understand the argument, are you saying we would be 5-5 if Rice and SMU had traded non conferece schedules?
perunapower wrote:I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
I love the NTSU getting throttled by UT analogy, especially since NTSU throttled SMU.
Since you claim to understand the argument, are you saying we would be 5-5 if Rice and SMU had traded non conferece schedules?
SMU did not get throttled by UNT, we sucked, yes, but 24-6 hardly compares to 52-7. I like how you ignored the first half of what I said, too. If SMU played TT, UNT, UT, and FSU, no SMU would not be 5-5 (which seems to be your point).
Though, I'm sure you're going to say we padded our stats against creampuffs and they played harder teams. Two games out of 10 would not affect those numbers too much.
perunapower wrote:I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
I love the NTSU getting throttled by UT analogy, especially since NTSU throttled SMU.
Since you claim to understand the argument, are you saying we would be 5-5 if Rice and SMU had traded non conferece schedules?
SMU did not get throttled by UNT, we sucked, yes, but 24-6 hardly compares to 52-7. I like how you ignored the first half of what I said, too. If SMU played TT, UNT, UT, and FSU, no SMU would not be 5-5 (which seems to be your point.
I'm trying to understand what I ignored or where you posted that SMU would not be 5-5 because yes, that was everyones point.
perunapower wrote:I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
I love the NTSU getting throttled by UT analogy, especially since NTSU throttled SMU.
Since you claim to understand the argument, are you saying we would be 5-5 if Rice and SMU had traded non conferece schedules?
SMU did not get throttled by UNT, we sucked, yes, but 24-6 hardly compares to 52-7. I like how you ignored the first half of what I said, too. If SMU played TT, UNT, UT, and FSU, no SMU would not be 5-5 (which seems to be your point.
I'm trying to understand what I ignored or where you posted that SMU would not be 5-5 because yes, that was everyones point.
You ignored the fact that Rice got lucky to beat UAB ala SMU '05 style and lost to Tulane. I apologize for not spoon-feeding you exactly what you missed. I expected you to go look at the first half of the other post to look.
Regardless, this is tedious. We have differing views. This will be settled when SMU visits Rice on the 25th.
What a stupid argument. Of course Rice has had a better season than SMU.
All of you who say otherwise just need to go back and look at your predictions for SMU at this point in the season and answer yourself honestly if you though Rice would have the same record at this point.
perunapower wrote:I understand exactly what he's saying, you [deleted]. Rice also BARELY squeaked out a win over UAB (a team we held to zero tds), got beat by a rather bad Tulane team, and got throttled about the same as UNT by UT.
I love the NTSU getting throttled by UT analogy, especially since NTSU throttled SMU.
Since you claim to understand the argument, are you saying we would be 5-5 if Rice and SMU had traded non conferece schedules?
SMU did not get throttled by UNT, we sucked, yes, but 24-6 hardly compares to 52-7. I like how you ignored the first half of what I said, too. If SMU played TT, UNT, UT, and FSU, no SMU would not be 5-5 (which seems to be your point.
I'm trying to understand what I ignored or where you posted that SMU would not be 5-5 because yes, that was everyones point.
You ignored the fact that Rice got lucky to beat UAB ala SMU '05 style and lost to Tulane. I apologize for not spoon-feeding you exactly what you missed. I expected you to go look at the first half of the other post to look.
Regardless, this is tedious. We have differing views. This will be settled when SMU visits Rice on the 25th.
I agree that it is tedious trying to get you to concede a point. The POINT is all about wins and losses, not margin of victory and I just scanned all of your posts on this thread and still cant find where you said Rice has done better than SMU because SMU wouldn't be 5-5 with their non conference schedule.
[quote="Stallion"]I think its the expectations thing. There is a reason for mediocrity and it is talent level.[/quote]....... Your right Stallion. This year we have more good players with experience than we have had in several years but depth is still a problem, as we saw against Houston when we have injuries.. As Orsini says, "Top 25" is the goal and if we ever get close to that in recruiting then we can raise our expectations.
