(10-14-2015 02:08 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: (10-14-2015 01:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: (10-14-2015 07:14 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: What I'm saying is that the current 40 game record is 27-13 if a poster prior added correctly. Regardless of the conference, past history at Rice says that's well above average.
I hate to keep banging on this door...
But do you think a 3.0 in Engineering at Rice represents 'the same' intellect as a 3.0 in Sociology at Houston Community College?
If you have one child getting c's at Rice and another at HCC getting b's, is the HCC child 'well above' your Rice child intellectually?
You CAN'T disregard the conference. You CAN'T disregard the schedule. If you could, you'd be arguing that going 13-0 in the SEC with 4 top 10 teams OOC is no better than going 13-0 in CUSA with 4 FCS teams OOC.
We were 10-3 when we played 6-6 Miss St. in the bowl. Were we the better team?
I can buy a WHOLE LOT of the arguments in favor of being optimistic and having a positive outlook on things... but I simply can't accept ignoring basic reality.
a) it makes us argue over things that we really shouldn't need to argue over and
b) creates the impression that we are being blind, which leads to unfair characterizations and even more arguments.... ALL about things completely unrelated to anything that matters.
You can't compare results under different conditions without paying attention to the differences in the conditions.
Ham, you ignored and cut out my second paragraph:
"The improvement from the record we had prior to that under Bailiff is more than can be attributed to schedule alone. Jonathon's strength of schedule bears that out as well."
I acknowledge schedule has an effect. But it is not 100% due to the schedule.
And Jonathon's strength of schedule numbers say the same thing. We have improved.
With all due respect, I don't see that this makes any difference to my 'criticism'. Your first paragraph implied that whether that record was against the SEC or FCS, that the results were well above average. My point is that you can't make that leap. You go from the SEC to FCS with ZERO other changes and your record will be WELL above average.
Jonathan's SOS numbers specifically address the issue of 'conference' differences (which account for 8/12ths of your schedule)
If you want to argue (as I did) that based on performance vs ranked teams and the number of ranked teams on the schedule, that the 2013 team would have been 4-7 or 5-6 against the 1985 schedule that went 3-8, and so we are 'better' even when adjusting for the schedule then that would be one thing... but it would STILL leave the difference between 10-3 and 5-6 as strongly (wholly?) attributable to schedule.
I'm not arguing that it is 100% schedule... but I'm also not merely looking at the number of wins and calling that 'better'. If we moved to the SEC, we would obviously lose more, but I'm betting we would also be much better.
Let me say it differently... a team could get 'worse' and still have a better record based on the conference. A team can get better and still have a worse record based on the conference. I don't think you can look at a record alone and say ANYTHING about whether or not the team is better. It didn't, but the magnitude of 'decline' in the conference could just as easily account for 110% as 90% of the difference in record.
I think you can argue Jonathan's (or massey's or sagarin's or whomever else you want) data and value whether we are getting better or not, but 'record' is almost meaningless.
The challenge we have is that record isn't a measure of 'better', but it DOES have an impact on PUBLIC PERCEPTION which can lead to butts in the seats, revenue and money... which CAN lead to being 'better'. Rankings (a measure of 'quality', not record) also can have an impact on public perception.
We need both.
