(12-13-2018 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  r.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

So where is winning in your hierarchy of important things? Just below...what?

Winning is a byproduct of being good. Winning is important, but its a result of doing other things rights. You can be a bad team and win for a while, but its much harder to be a good team and regularly lose.

Purely looking at wins and not quality of team and quality of wins, is how you end up really happy with being a paper tiger (at best). Its like being in single A baseball, batting 0.450 and being content with never moving on. Thats a losing mentality, everywhere but at Rice.

(12-13-2018 12:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  r.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

So where is winning in your hierarchy of important things? Just below...what?

Winning is a byproduct of being good. Winning is important, but its a result of doing other things rights. You can be a bad team and win for a while, but its much harder to be a good team and regularly lose.

Purely looking at wins and not quality of team and quality of wins, is how you end up really happy with being a paper tiger (at best). Its like being in single A baseball, batting 0.450 and being content with never moving on. Thats a losing mentality, everywhere but at Rice.

You contradict yourself. The first sentence says it all. yes, of course there will be times when one wins ugly. better to win ugly than to lose beautifully.

(12-13-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 12:10 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 11:27 AM)Antarius Wrote:  r.

It's possible to suck and still win games. My standards are higher than that.

So where is winning in your hierarchy of important things? Just below...what?

Winning is a byproduct of being good. Winning is important, but its a result of doing other things rights. You can be a bad team and win for a while, but its much harder to be a good team and regularly lose.

Purely looking at wins and not quality of team and quality of wins, is how you end up really happy with being a paper tiger (at best). Its like being in single A baseball, batting 0.450 and being content with never moving on. Thats a losing mentality, everywhere but at Rice.

You contradict yourself. The first sentence says it all. yes, of course there will be times when one wins ugly. better to win ugly than to lose beautifully.

No. I'm talking about a winning philosophy and structure that leads to wins.

We were a 10 win team in 2013 that was bottom 50% of FBS. That means we had wins but weren't good. I'm more interested in being 8-4 and being ranked top 30 with quality wins. Those 2 extra wins aren't worth the delta between being a good team and only being able to beat bad ones.

Blindly chasing a number is what Carly Fiorina did at HP. It went very poorly. Bean counting to hit a number is a short sighted strategy.

(12-13-2018 02:34 PM)Antarius Wrote:  No. I'm talking about a winning philosophy and structure that leads to wins.
We were a 10 win team in 2013 that was bottom 50% of FBS. That means we had wins but weren't good. I'm more interested in being 8-4 and being ranked top 30 with quality wins. Those 2 extra wins aren't worth the delta between being a good team and only being able to beat bad ones.
Blindly chasing a number is what Carly Fiorina did at HP. It went very poorly. Bean counting to hit a number is a short sighted strategy.

Well, if we'd gone 8-4 in 2013, against that schedule, we wouldn't have been anywhere close to top 30, in fact we'd have been deeper in the bottom 50%. You are who your record says you are. We were good enough to win 10 games against that schedule, but not good enough to win 8 against a top 50 schedule.

I think I know where you are going with this, and I like it, but I'm not sure 2013 is a great example. What I want to see is a team that I think performs, as a team, better than the sum of its individual parts. I don't think I've seen that from Rice football recently. I did think that's what I was seeing in 2006, and 2007 tended to confirm that, but then 2008 seemed to say that maybe that talent was better than I'd given them credit for being, and that 2007 was the outlier.

I want us to recruit the best talent we can within the constraints under which we operate (with which I generally agree, although I am still concerned that the process may not work as efficiently as it could, and that may cost us some talent). I think our path to attracting better talent lies at least somewhat in seeking some specific skill sets that may slip through due to inefficiencies in the P5 recruiting process. In some ways, kind of a Moneyball approach to attracting talent--get the skill sets that work best for us, not necessarily the skill sets everyone else wants. That then implies that our schemes are going to be somewhat against the grain, as well. I do think contrarian schemes, particularly on offense, are the way for us to go. And then execute and think and discipline ourselves to do the "little things" that make a difference between wins and losses. Rather than be known as a team that keeps it close, I'd rather be known as a team that knows how to win the close games. As I said, given a choice between 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, or 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses, I'll take the 6-6 and go to a bowl. 6 > 5.

(12-13-2018 03:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 02:34 PM)Antarius Wrote:  No. I'm talking about a winning philosophy and structure that leads to wins.
We were a 10 win team in 2013 that was bottom 50% of FBS. That means we had wins but weren't good. I'm more interested in being 8-4 and being ranked top 30 with quality wins. Those 2 extra wins aren't worth the delta between being a good team and only being able to beat bad ones.
Blindly chasing a number is what Carly Fiorina did at HP. It went very poorly. Bean counting to hit a number is a short sighted strategy.

Well, if we'd gone 8-4 in 2013, against that schedule, we wouldn't have been anywhere close to top 30, in fact we'd have been deeper in the bottom 50%. You are who your record says you are. We were good enough to win 10 games against that schedule, but not good enough to win 8 against a top 50 schedule.

I think I know where you are going with this, and I like it, but I'm not sure 2013 is a great example. What I want to see is a team that I think performs, as a team, better than the sum of its individual parts. I don't think I've seen that from Rice football recently. I did think that's what I was seeing in 2006, and 2007 tended to confirm that, but then 2008 seemed to say that maybe that talent was better than I'd given them credit for being, and that 2007 was the outlier.

I want us to recruit the best talent we can within the constraints under which we operate (with which I generally agree, although I am still concerned that the process may not work as efficiently as it could, and that may cost us some talent). I think our path to attracting better talent lies at least somewhat in seeking some specific skill sets that may slip through due to inefficiencies in the P5 recruiting process. In some ways, kind of a Moneyball approach to attracting talent--get the skill sets that work best for us, not necessarily the skill sets everyone else wants. That then implies that our schemes are going to be somewhat against the grain, as well. I do think contrarian schemes, particularly on offense, are the way for us to go. And then execute and think and discipline ourselves to do the "little things" that make a difference between wins and losses. Rather than be known as a team that keeps it close, I'd rather be known as a team that knows how to win the close games. As I said, given a choice between 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, or 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses, I'll take the 6-6 and go to a bowl. 6 > 5.

If we are to be 8-4 with “quality”wins, I guess those four losses are to bad teams.

,aye I just don’t understand what a quality win is in Ant’s mind. I assume it is any P5 but Kansas or Purdue. So I guess the 8-4 season he wants is 4-0 OOC and 4-4 in conference. I don’t see a 4-4 CUSA team is to 30.

(12-13-2018 03:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 02:34 PM)Antarius Wrote:  No. I'm talking about a winning philosophy and structure that leads to wins.
We were a 10 win team in 2013 that was bottom 50% of FBS. That means we had wins but weren't good. I'm more interested in being 8-4 and being ranked top 30 with quality wins. Those 2 extra wins aren't worth the delta between being a good team and only being able to beat bad ones.
Blindly chasing a number is what Carly Fiorina did at HP. It went very poorly. Bean counting to hit a number is a short sighted strategy.

Well, if we'd gone 8-4 in 2013, against that schedule, we wouldn't have been anywhere close to top 30, in fact we'd have been deeper in the bottom 50%. You are who your record says you are. We were good enough to win 10 games against that schedule, but not good enough to win 8 against a top 50 schedule.

I think I know where you are going with this, and I like it, but I'm not sure 2013 is a great example. What I want to see is a team that I think performs, as a team, better than the sum of its individual parts. I don't think I've seen that from Rice football recently. I did think that's what I was seeing in 2006, and 2007 tended to confirm that, but then 2008 seemed to say that maybe that talent was better than I'd given them credit for being, and that 2007 was the outlier.

I want us to recruit the best talent we can within the constraints under which we operate (with which I generally agree, although I am still concerned that the process may not work as efficiently as it could, and that may cost us some talent). I think our path to attracting better talent lies at least somewhat in seeking some specific skill sets that may slip through due to inefficiencies in the P5 recruiting process. In some ways, kind of a Moneyball approach to attracting talent--get the skill sets that work best for us, not necessarily the skill sets everyone else wants. That then implies that our schemes are going to be somewhat against the grain, as well. I do think contrarian schemes, particularly on offense, are the way for us to go. And then execute and think and discipline ourselves to do the "little things" that make a difference between wins and losses. Rather than be known as a team that keeps it close, I'd rather be known as a team that knows how to win the close games. As I said, given a choice between 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, or 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses, I'll take the 6-6 and go to a bowl. 6 > 5.

Yes and no. Had we beaten aTm, we may have ended up ranked higher than we did. Granted, had we beaten aTm, we likely wouldnt lose to UNT or get our paper-tiger selves lit on fire by Mississippi State.

As for your last example, I'm not sure whether I would say 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, is inherently better than 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses. The former is better looking at a single season, but 5 big wins could indicate that we were streaky but had the pieces in place to be much better next year. Fortuitous scheduling can paper over a lot of cracks.

I'd rather be 6-6 Purdue with a beatdown of #2 Ohio State and #19 Iowa than 10-3 Rice with zero quality wins. 6-6 Purdue has an upside. 10-3 Rice with zero wins in the top half of CFB does not. Given that the stated goal of the AD is top 25 (which is mine as well), 6-6 = 5-7 = 4-8 etc. in CUSA. All bottom third teams in FBS. Not interested in beating the bottom 10 teams and being happy with being one of 82 teams that get participation bowl awards.

My point was that the quality of play and wins matter, not just bean counting wins, no matter how bad the teams we beat are. We all saw how Carly Fiorina's tenure at HP went with this sort of strategy.. its the rare thing that rivals Greenspan's tenure here.

(12-13-2018 05:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Yes and no. Had we beaten aTm, we may have ended up ranked higher than we did. Granted, had we beaten aTm, we likely wouldnt lose to UNT or get our paper-tiger selves lit on fire by Mississippi State.
As for your last example, I'm not sure whether I would say 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, is inherently better than 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses. The former is better looking at a single season, but 5 big wins could indicate that we were streaky but had the pieces in place to be much better next year. Fortuitous scheduling can paper over a lot of cracks.
I'd rather be 6-6 Purdue with a beatdown of #2 Ohio State and #19 Iowa than 10-3 Rice with zero quality wins. 6-6 Purdue has an upside. 10-3 Rice with zero wins in the top half of CFB does not. Given that the stated goal of the AD is top 25 (which is mine as well), 6-6 = 5-7 = 4-8 etc. in CUSA. All bottom third teams in FBS. Not interested in beating the bottom 10 teams and being happy with being one of 82 teams that get participation bowl awards.
My point was that the quality of play and wins matter, not just bean counting wins, no matter how bad the teams we beat are. We all saw how Carly Fiorina's tenure at HP went with this sort of strategy.. its the rare thing that rivals Greenspan's tenure here.

But I think you're comparing apples and oranges. We don't get to play Ohio State and Iowa (thank God, this year). You can't have quality wins without playing quality opponents. We beat ODU who beat VaTech. That's our "quality" win for this year. Other than LSU (whom we were never going to beat at any time in the last 15 years or so) there were no quality wins. And we had lots of bad losses.

I'm not all that excited about going 10-3 in CUSA either. But we're a long way from doing that, and until we can do that consistently, we are just kidding ourselves.

Going independent, getting into MWC or AAC or XII or SEC, those are just pipe dreams. None of them will solve the basic problem that we simply aren't very good. We have to fix our own boat first.

(12-13-2018 05:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 05:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Yes and no. Had we beaten aTm, we may have ended up ranked higher than we did. Granted, had we beaten aTm, we likely wouldnt lose to UNT or get our paper-tiger selves lit on fire by Mississippi State.
As for your last example, I'm not sure whether I would say 6-6, with 6 close wins and 6 blowout losses, is inherently better than 5-7, with 5 easy wins and 7 close losses. The former is better looking at a single season, but 5 big wins could indicate that we were streaky but had the pieces in place to be much better next year. Fortuitous scheduling can paper over a lot of cracks.
I'd rather be 6-6 Purdue with a beatdown of #2 Ohio State and #19 Iowa than 10-3 Rice with zero quality wins. 6-6 Purdue has an upside. 10-3 Rice with zero wins in the top half of CFB does not. Given that the stated goal of the AD is top 25 (which is mine as well), 6-6 = 5-7 = 4-8 etc. in CUSA. All bottom third teams in FBS. Not interested in beating the bottom 10 teams and being happy with being one of 82 teams that get participation bowl awards.
My point was that the quality of play and wins matter, not just bean counting wins, no matter how bad the teams we beat are. We all saw how Carly Fiorina's tenure at HP went with this sort of strategy.. its the rare thing that rivals Greenspan's tenure here.

But I think you're comparing apples and oranges. We don't get to play Ohio State and Iowa (thank God, this year). You can't have quality wins without playing quality opponents. We beat ODU who beat VaTech. That's our "quality" win for this year. Other than LSU (whom we were never going to beat at any time in the last 15 years or so) there were no quality wins. And we had lots of bad losses.

I'm not all that excited about going 10-3 in CUSA either. But we're a long way from doing that, and until we can do that consistently, we are just kidding ourselves.

Going independent, getting into MWC or AAC or XII or SEC, those are just pipe dreams. None of them will solve the basic problem that we simply aren't very good. We have to fix our own boat first.

Of course - no disagreement that we need to fix our own house first.

But towards that
1. Wins are not the sole measure of progress. Sure we weren't going to beat LSU, but I'd trade taking them down to the wire over a win against UTSA. The former means we may be able to build on it next year.
2. Quality of play matters. Close wins against bad teams mean you lose to better ones 99% of the time.
3. Improvement - We regressed over the course of the season and that was concerning. We need to see improvement in fundamentals, execution, strategy etc.

and most importantly
4. There is no silver bullet. No EZF, no scoreboard, no P5 benefactor who loves Rice for its academics, no media deal waiting for a Houston school etc. We're in Aleppo with a butter knife and nothing else - its going to be an ugly miserable grind to make it out, if we do at all.

I’m tired of moral victories. I want wins. If they are against LSU, great.

But I would not trade any real victory for a moral one.

And we do not recruit against LSU. We do against UTSA. That win may help us more in the long run.

(12-13-2018 06:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And we do not recruit against LSU. We do against UTSA. That win may help us more in the long run.

Has it? Look back to when UTSA became FBS; beating or losing to them has made no difference. We're still battling the sunbelt for worst conference and we still are terrible. No matter whether we win 10, 8, 1 or 2.

The method has been tried and it has failed.

(12-13-2018 06:53 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And we do not recruit against LSU. We do against UTSA. That win may help us more in the long run.

Has it? Look back to when UTSA became FBS; beating or losing to them has made no difference. We're still battling the sunbelt for worst conference and we still are terrible. No matter whether we win 10, 8, 1 or 2.
The method has been tried and it has failed.

Beat UTSA, lose to LSU = 1-1.
Beat LSU, lose to UTSA = 1-1.

One has a better victory, but also a worse loss. I don't see either as better than the other, and I don't see a signature win. What is a signature win is beating PV, UH1, UH2, Wake, SouMis, UTSA, UAB, F_U, UNT, UTEP, LaTech, so we are 11-0 going to Baton Rouge and THEN beat LSU. That didn't happen. And oh, by the way, do that and then come home and lose to ODU, and you accomplished nothing.

(12-13-2018 07:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:53 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 06:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And we do not recruit against LSU. We do against UTSA. That win may help us more in the long run.

Has it? Look back to when UTSA became FBS; beating or losing to them has made no difference. We're still battling the sunbelt for worst conference and we still are terrible. No matter whether we win 10, 8, 1 or 2.
The method has been tried and it has failed.

Beat UTSA, lose to LSU = 1-1.
Beat LSU, lose to UTSA = 1-1.

One has a better victory, but also a worse loss. I don't see either as better than the other, and I don't see a signature win. What is a signature win is beating PV, UH1, UH2, Wake, SouMis, UTSA, UAB, F_U, UNT, UTEP, LaTech, so we are 11-0 going to Baton Rouge and THEN beat LSU. That didn't happen. And oh, by the way, do that and then come home and lose to ODU, and you accomplished nothing.

The former shows nothing, the latter hints at progress. Which means, next year, hopefully we beat both. Fixing the beat LSU, lose to UTSA is waaaaay easier than the other. You can fix a loss to UTSA with practice etc. you cant easily fix looking like a middle school team against LSU.

Its the difference between investing in a company that is losing but has solid fundamentals or potential and buying into Pets.com because the latter looks nicer (like some meaningless wins). Both may cost you the same per share, but only one lets you walk away with success potential.

By saying 1-1 = 1-1, youre arguing like others here who said Neely bowl game = Graham/Bailiff bowl game. Yes, both were bowl games, but thats about the only similarity.

I'm confused - I thought we were HP. We're Pets.com now? Or are we United? Or was it Air Zimbabwe?

This is all rather confusing.

(12-13-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused - I thought we were HP. We're Pets.com now? Or are we United? Or was it Air Zimbabwe?

This is all rather confusing.

Its a lot clearer if you look for the trend instead of the data point. But i'm sure you knew that already.

(12-13-2018 07:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The former shows nothing, the latter hints at progress. Which means, next year, hopefully we beat both. Fixing the beat LSU, lose to UTSA is waaaaay easier than the other. You can fix a loss to UTSA with practice etc. you cant easily fix looking like a middle school team against LSU.
Its the difference between investing in a company that is losing but has solid fundamentals or potential and buying into Pets.com because the latter looks nicer (like some meaningless wins). Both may cost you the same per share, but only one lets you walk away with success potential.
By saying 1-1 = 1-1, youre arguing like others here who said Neely bowl game = Graham/Bailiff bowl game. Yes, both were bowl games, but thats about the only similarity.

While beating LSU >>> beating UTSA, I'm not at all sure that fixing lose to LSU is easier than fixing lose to UTSA. Beating UTSA and losing to LSU, you have a pretty good idea where you are. Beating LSU and losing to UTSA, you have no clue.

Nobody is saying that a Graham/Bailiff bowl game = a Neely bowl game, or at least I'm not. That's not even a valid comparison. Consider Neely's 1965 team beat ranked Texas in Austin and lost the remaining 5 games to finish 2-8. His 1966 and final team beat LSU and them went 1-8 the rest of the year. Were those quality wins? Of course. But would we have regarded those teams more highly if, instead of winning those two games, they had gone 6-4 or 7-3 in those years? Absolutely. Or look at ODU this year. They beat VaTech, but did they build on it? No. By the time we played them, they were not a very good football team.

I'm not comparing Graham/Bailiff to Neely. I'm comparing different possible results within the same years.

(12-13-2018 08:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused - I thought we were HP. We're Pets.com now? Or are we United? Or was it Air Zimbabwe?

This is all rather confusing.

Its a lot clearer if you look for the trend instead of the data point. But i'm sure you knew that already.

That's not clear at all! How am I supposed to keep up with which titan of industry our program resembles when they keep switching on me?

What if we're really Sears!?

(12-13-2018 09:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 08:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm confused - I thought we were HP. We're Pets.com now? Or are we United? Or was it Air Zimbabwe?

This is all rather confusing.

Its a lot clearer if you look for the trend instead of the data point. But i'm sure you knew that already.

That's not clear at all! How am I supposed to keep up with which titan of industry our program resembles when they keep switching on me?

What if we're really Sears!?

Sounds like a personal problem

Good that I saw the other win in 1966 which was at home against TCU which was the last Neely home game so my parents took me to it. BTW the 1963 team turned down going to the Sun Bowl because they did not think it was good enough.

(12-13-2018 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The former shows nothing, the latter hints at progress. Which means, next year, hopefully we beat both. Fixing the beat LSU, lose to UTSA is waaaaay easier than the other. You can fix a loss to UTSA with practice etc. you cant easily fix looking like a middle school team against LSU.
Its the difference between investing in a company that is losing but has solid fundamentals or potential and buying into Pets.com because the latter looks nicer (like some meaningless wins). Both may cost you the same per share, but only one lets you walk away with success potential.
By saying 1-1 = 1-1, youre arguing like others here who said Neely bowl game = Graham/Bailiff bowl game. Yes, both were bowl games, but thats about the only similarity.

While beating LSU >>> beating UTSA, I'm not at all sure that fixing lose to LSU is easier than fixing lose to UTSA. Beating UTSA and losing to LSU, you have a pretty good idea where you are. Beating LSU and losing to UTSA, you have no clue.

Nobody is saying that a Graham/Bailiff bowl game = a Neely bowl game, or at least I'm not. That's not even a valid comparison. Consider Neely's 1965 team beat ranked Texas in Austin and lost the remaining 5 games to finish 2-8. His 1966 and final team beat LSU and them went 1-8 the rest of the year. Were those quality wins? Of course. But would we have regarded those teams more highly if, instead of winning those two games, they had gone 6-4 or 7-3 in those years? Absolutely. Or look at ODU this year. They beat VaTech, but did they build on it? No. By the time we played them, they were not a very good football team.

I'm not comparing Graham/Bailiff to Neely. I'm comparing different possible results within the same years.

(12-13-2018 01:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2018 11:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Not getting blown out by anyone would be a step in the right direction. By that measure, we'd definitely be more "competitive" in my book. I hope for everyone involved that 2020 is the breakout season.

I am more concerned with wins than being "competitive". Which would we rather have, 6 wins and six blowout losses, or twelve close (1-7 points) losses?

And I want to see progress in in 2019. I am not pinning my hopes on 2020.

.
I'm into acknowledging the battles that are won at a micro level. At this point there are smaller measures of success

(12-13-2018 08:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-13-2018 07:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The former shows nothing, the latter hints at progress. Which means, next year, hopefully we beat both. Fixing the beat LSU, lose to UTSA is waaaaay easier than the other. You can fix a loss to UTSA with practice etc. you cant easily fix looking like a middle school team against LSU.
Its the difference between investing in a company that is losing but has solid fundamentals or potential and buying into Pets.com because the latter looks nicer (like some meaningless wins). Both may cost you the same per share, but only one lets you walk away with success potential.
By saying 1-1 = 1-1, youre arguing like others here who said Neely bowl game = Graham/Bailiff bowl game. Yes, both were bowl games, but thats about the only similarity.

While beating LSU >>> beating UTSA, I'm not at all sure that fixing lose to LSU is easier than fixing lose to UTSA. Beating UTSA and losing to LSU, you have a pretty good idea where you are. Beating LSU and losing to UTSA, you have no clue.

I disagree. I think if you beat LSU and lose to UTSA, you can find a reason and a way to fix it. One is a short term consistency issue, one is straight up inability. If I beat Usain Bolt one race and lost to a runner in another, I can work on it... but a more realistic situation is I cant get in the same galaxy of Usain Bolt. And theres nothing I know to do that will ever change that.

I dont think Bailiff or Bloomgren (so far. Hoping to be shown otherwise) have a frickin clue how to beat LSU.. or even compete. That's far more challenging that UTSA.

As for the bowl game - it was based on other past posts on the board. I used it to illustrate that 1-1 != 1-1 in all cases. Some 1-1's are better.