Here are my 2010 predictions (though I don't much like the taste they leave in my mouth and I'll be more than happy to be wrong). We don't win more than 4 games. Defense is still lousy. Offense isn't on track. Special teams don't excel.

Bailiff had 3 years to get it done and the year he did, it was with someone else's seniors. We were substantially worse and pee wee like in all phases of the game this year. If the actual turning of the corner were going to happen, we should have been able to tell this year. No matter how nice he is and how well he seems to fit and how much no one seems to be willing to say it aloud, it isn't going to happen with this crew.

Go ahead. Throw stones. Why am I wrong?

At Rice, we don't re-load, we re-build, and we've never ever lost as much talent as we lost after the 2008 season. True, the coaching this season seemed as bad as I've seen at Rice, but to expect for the program to turn the corner in 2009 was unrealistic, it was a classic re-building year. I predicted 4-8 prior to the season and even then I felt that I was reaching. The experience and talent that left when you count the juniors who graduated early, the special sophomore who declared for the NFL draft, and the 2 record setting all-time great seniors who graduated, it amounts to a complete 180. The senior class of 2009 was small and not very productive, other than Dixon and (the injured) Sendejo. Bailiff went 3-9 his first season but somehow won 10 the next year, so a similar turnaround, with the transfers, etc., is certainly possible with him at the helm. While I don't expect it to be as dramatic, at this early stage, I'll throw out 6-6 as prediction for next season.

If we follow his trend of craptacular year followed by spectacular year, I will say he goes 10-2 next year. Well, that leaves out the bowl game and the championship game (if we are in one).

Bad year - good year - bad year. I'm not sure if that's enough to be a trend, but I'll take it for the purposes of next year only! Though, assuming the same assistants are around next season, I'm not sure if I'd be that surprised by a four-win season in 2010. My guess is we win 5 or 6.

(12-08-2009 04:44 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Why am I wrong?

Um, because you're predicting a poor season without allowing the players, coaches and recruits have a shot at it?

Because being negative (as opposed to withholding judgement) publically, is just an invitation for others to continue to be negative publically ad nauseum between now and next season.

Believing that we won't improve is fine, inviting others to join you publically . . . . may not be aweful or morally wrong.

But it's not productive, especially given that there is almost no chance that Bailiff will not be here or that the existing players will leave (neither of which I want obviously - - it's just that no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise, since you are focusing on 2009 performance and that involves the people who will be coming back).

There's nothing anyone else can say, but wait and see.

(12-08-2009 04:44 PM)kinderowl Wrote:  Here are my 2010 predictions (though I don't much like the taste they leave in my mouth and I'll be more than happy to be wrong). We don't win more than 4 games. Defense is still lousy. Offense isn't on track. Special teams don't excel.

Bailiff had 3 years to get it done and the year he did, it was with someone else's seniors. We were substantially worse and pee wee like in all phases of the game this year. If the actual turning of the corner were going to happen, we should have been able to tell this year. No matter how nice he is and how well he seems to fit and how much no one seems to be willing to say it aloud, it isn't going to happen with this crew.

Go ahead. Throw stones. Why am I wrong?

Good to have yet another thread on this, since the others were getting stale. Looking forward to the litany of excuses for why this season was such a mess, followed by the equally followups about why things like injury and experience shouldn't matter.

In the end, I find your post wrong because who recruited the seniors he won with last year doesn't matter. They were his players in his system for that season, and he showed that he can win with that kind of upperclass talent and leadership. If he can restock the cupboard with similarly talented players, I would expect him to have similar success in the future. His recent recruiting efforts among HS seniors and impact transfers seems to suggest that will be the case.

For me, this season he showed he can't turn water into wine. If that's our standard, increase those donations, so we can get into a bidding war with the Golden Domers for this guy: http://www.theonion.com/content/news_bri...own_3_year

But predicting a season--"without allowing the players, coaches and recruits have a shot at it"--is the entire point of a prediction. If Kinder's post today had instead called a 2-10 season for 2009, that wouldn't have been much of a prediction, would it?

I'm going to go to Vegas to see if I can put some big money on Michael Phelps winning eight golds in Beijing in 2008.

(I kid, I kid!)

Our offense was worse than last year. With the talent we lost, it was supposed to. The offensive falloff does not concern me nearly as much as other things.

Our defense was supposed to improve enough to pick up the slack. It didn't. Looking at it on a yards-per-play basis to eliminate possession time effects, we gave up 6.6 yards per play this year, compared to 6.3 in 2008, 6.5 in 2007, 6.6 in 2006, and 6.9 in Hatfield's last year. We also gave up 5 or more plays of 20+ yards in six of our 12 games in 2009; Brian Billick says that statistically you lose 86% of the time when you do that. All those numbers are bad, and the trend is not what you should be seeing in the third year of a program. To give you an idea, Hatfield's 1994 SWC co-champions gave up 4.8 per play. We need to be somewhere in the 5's next year.

Our kicking game was supposed to improve, and was the best it's been under Bailiff. It only cost us one game and didn't win any for us. We should have a kicking game that will pick up 2-3 wins in evenly matched games each year. At minimum, we need to get more wins than losses out the kicking game every year, starting next year.

I like David a lot and I hope he gets it done. But some of these things need to change starting next year.

I'm going with 8-4 not including the bowl, because that's where I think we need to be to get this thing back on track.

Actually Cef... since we were 7-6, 3-9, 10-3, 2-10 I think we should be 12-2 followed by 1-11... then 14-0 followed by 0-12. I don't know where we go from there.... back to +/- 500 I guess.

Owl 69...,

Our offense was worse than our already substantially lowered expectations. The reasons have been debated ad naseum here and I won't repeat that. Sufice it to say that I expect next year's offense to be better than this year's, but I won't go so far as to suggest that it will be as productive as the 2008 version. It could be as or more productive, but until we see how the pieces gell and are used, I think that is an unrealistic expectation. Perhaps a reasonable goal, but not expectation.

Our defense was not as improved as I expected, but I still think it was improved. Not enough to pick up the slack that some projected, but it was improved. I suspect the 6.6 yards per play compared to the 6.3 from last year is directly attributable to the number of big plays we gave up. That was the direct result of the difference in footspeed on the field. And I think the defense will continue to improve both in the ability to make game changing plays and in reducing the number of 20+ yard plays/overall per play average.

I never quite know what to expect out of the kicking game, but I do always expect disciplined, sound fundamental football in that area. As long as it doesn't beat you, everything else is gravy in my book. Just put the kids in position to make plays and see what happens and like with the results. Like the defense, footspeed was the big issue that I saw in this area, something that I suspect will be addressed in Spring.

As far as Brian Billick's statistical analysis, I think it is overstating the case dramatically. He is analyzing NFL football, not NCAA or high school or any other level. The differences between talent level and approaches at the NFL level is very small so that big plays are both rarer and more devastating than at the NCAA level. I simply think you will see more big plays on both sides of the ball in NCAA football than you will in NFL games. His point is valid - that giving up big plays will get you beat. But the raw numbers are comparing apples and grapefruit - both are good for you, but they don't taste the same or have the same effects (just ask those old sailors who got scurvy!).

I do agree with your conclusion though - I think 8-4 plus a bowl game is very doable. Better than that is probably overachieving, less than that is, subject to revision as we see whether the pieces are in place that we think are here, either very unlucky or underachieving and cause for raising questions. The fact that we are asking whether the expectation line should be at about 8-4 suggests to me that, despite all the griping and complaining we had during this pay your dues year, we are all seeing the bigger picture. I for one am glad that Bailiff not only sees it, but has acted on it even though it meant fading some heat this year.

JMHO. Worth about what you paid for it.