October 21, 2007 | 13 Comments | 0 Replies | RSS

• 1 | ID 6 | October 22, 2007 15:49 | Joe Shifflett

  The 1999-2000 Rice Rugby team is the best that Rice has produced. The team was the first from Rice and the Texas Rugby Union to rank in the top 10 based on USA Rugby’s ranking system. After a disappointing 3rd place finish in the TRU, the 2000 team beat Colorado State University and crushed Texas A&M in back-to-back games to qualify for the Western Semifinals. The “warm-up” game against CSU was such a physical match that the Aggie coaches admitted they expected Rice to be too beat-up to be effective on the second day. While many players had bruises, cuts, sprains, and general soreness going into the A&M match, to a man they stepped up to prove that they were the best team in Texas. With the match slipping away, the Aggies frustrations built up and some of their players tried to shake the Owls resolve. The Aggies called for a scrum after Rice committed a penalty inside its own 22 and as the players were preparing to pack down, the Rice Assistant coaches shouted encouragement to the forwards that had been dominating the set pieces throughout the match: “If they want a scrum; we’ll give them a scrum!” Sure enough, the undersized but better skilled Rice frontrow of Phil, Garrett, and Chucky pushed the Aggies back and Vaughan got the ball out cleanly to flyhalf Nickie Darling who laced a beauty of a kick from his own tryzone to the Aggies 40m where it bounced out of bounds. As Nickie was starting to chase his own kick, the frustrated openside flanker from A&M threw an elbow into Nick’s eye opening up a cut that took at least 20 stitches to close. The resulting penalty gave Rice the ball in A&M territory and Rice extended their lead to win easily.

  In the second round of Westerns, Rice beat Truman State behind some fantastic lineout work and crash balls from Number 8 Judd Smith. The Owls were consistently putting Truman on the back foot by breaking both the gainline and multiple tackles, and then getting good ball to the backs in space. With the win, Rice qualified for Nationals for the second time in four years. The next day in a typical spring thunderstorm in Houston, the Rice Owls were outplayed by eventual number 2 Wyoming giving the Owls some extra motivation for their Sweet 16 preparation.

  In West Point, the Owls lost to Army (who went on to place 3rd in the nation) on the first day and blasted Princeton on day two. The win over Princeton was the first time a Rice team won in the Sweet 16 tournament. The win combined with losing to #2 and #3 gave Rice a 9th place finished based on the seed given to the West #2 seed to the 2001 USA Rugby National Championships.

  Stay tuned; I will post pictures and the roster in a few days.

  Joe

• 2 | ID 8 | October 22, 2007 18:17 | kbayazitoglu

  The 1997 team was the best ever. The 2000 team had a great run to Nationals, but all in all the 1997 was better. The 1997 team was the first Rice team to play in nationals, and the first and only team to beat an Academy team (Airforce in Westerns) and came very close to winning the West. How can the 2000 team be the best ever when they failed to win Texas? The 1997 team was much deeper than 2000. The 2000 was fortunate because an injury to one of their many critical players would have doomed them. In addition, the 2000 team did not have two full sides (only 25 players) which set the table for future struggles. The 1997 had success that went beyond Westerns and Nationals. The 1997 team won Texas by easily beating Texas A&M and beat arguably LSU's best team ever. In a California Tournament, 1997 team crushed nationally ranked Catholic and competing with BYU. The BYU coach was amazed at the power of our undersized Rice scrum. Head to head the 1997 players easily beat the 1999-00 and 00-01 (with Judd) in alumni games. Kent B.

• 3 | ID 9 | October 23, 2007 23:51 | roscoe

  well said kent...when was the last time that was attributed to a bayazitoglu. Is that "joe" shifflett? Additionally, the 97 team set up the 2000 team getting them the experience in nationals as freshmen. I must put in a word for the 1996 team as well. I think that team may have had more raw talent than the 1997 team, but ran into a tough air force team early in westerns. However, the good finish set up the 1997 team. Also, the recruiting efforts of the 95 and 96 teams did a lot for the team.

• 4 | ID 10 | October 25, 2007 13:27 | Joe Shifflett

  First, Kent, I'm pretty sure that the undergrads beat the Alumni in the fall of 1999. It's possible that the Alumni got a couple late trys when they stacked the field with 17 or 18 players, but in the first two periods, when Rice was playing their first side, the team easily handled the Alumni. Plus the Alumni game was played during football season before Judd joined us.

  Roscoe, I agree with you that the 1996-1997 team recruited well. You guys probably were the best recruiters in the history of Rice Rugby and for that we all thank you. If you guys hadn't done such a good time of recruiting, the 1999-2000 team would not have been able to exceed the high bar that the 97 team set.

• 5 | ID 15 | October 29, 2007 15:53 | CJK

  Injuries: Your argument the 2000 team isn't better b/c an injury would have hurt them..... Are the Patriots not the best team this year b/c if Brady got hurt they wouldn't be as good. Were the Bulls not as good b/c if Jordan got hurt, they wouldn't have been as good. What if, what if...well. nobody got hurt, the 2000 team won at nationals, finished highest. Deal with it.

  Not winning the TRU: The Steelers didn't win their divison the year they won the Superbowl. The Rockies didn't win their division this year. Will anyone remember that the Dbacks won the division? No, they'll remember the rockies run to the world series. What matters is how far you got.

  Having more players. Notre Dame probably has 120 players suit up for home games. Does that help them beat anyone? Sure, numbers are a good sign of the vitality of the club, but not a sign of which team is better.

• 6 | ID 17 | October 30, 2007 15:26 | Bhutch

  I'll be the first to actually elect a team that I was only a small part of. The 1992-1993 Fightin' Owls side was ridiculously dominant. They not only won all their cup matches but I think they may have allowed only 3 points over the year in doing so. To those who claim we had a coaching advantage - we were coached by our Captain Matt Roberts that year so that argument is out. We played mostly against mixed college/mens sides and still drove opposing packs 50 yards regularly. It was embarassing. Thankfully we were young and weak on the outside so our worst players were me, troy and marketos when we were actually in the top 15 for the week. For those of you (2000 team) that are ignorant of history under the old national format you had to WIN westerns to advance to the final four. There weren't 2 or 3 spots available. Under the current system several teams (91, 92, 93, 96) all would have advanced. And, I think most of the guys on this team would say either the year before or 96, 97 were better.

• 7 | ID 18 | October 30, 2007 17:08 | Dr. Darling

  I mean, can anyone really tell? First off, yeah, when I was a freshman in 1996 that team was pretty awesome. The pack consistently dominated, roscoe was was widicuwous (asian american phonetic) and we did win Texas and put up a great fight in Westerns. We got killed at nationals by some very very good competition and we had some key injuries then too with I think Hutch being out, I had a pulled hammy, and I think Smashkins had a separated shoulder. But to say they or the 2000 team is better is kinda hard. 1996 pack was probably better, I would say 2000 backs were better, maybe not in total skill but they way we played as a unit. I, hopefully, was better in 2000 than in 1996 and as a backs unit I think we held the ball better, and played a better overall game of actually being able to ruck, maul, defend, and kick and pass more evenly, whereas in 96 I probably kicked a good 80% of the time just out of inexperience. What point am I making, probably not much of one, but as with any Ed Brown coached team, both 96 and 2000 teams knew their own weaknesses and strengths, and played accordingly. Isn't the beauty of all good Rice teams that we make ourselves look good by playing intelligent rugby, taking advantage og the oppositions weaknesses while hiding our own? I think it might be somewhat of a stalemate? As for teams before that, how would I know?

• 8 | ID 19 | October 30, 2007 17:48 | The Manager

  I disagree, it's a very good game, but i think Donkey Kong is the best game ever.

• 9 | ID 21 | October 30, 2007 20:32 | Dr. Darling

  Just to show I am not biased, the alumni team did indeed lay a whoopin on us in 99-00, kent was right. However, anyone that watched us that season could tell you that the team that played the second semester of that year was FAR better than the one that faced the alumni. We had some key additions, including both Judd and Josh Baker, and also some young sophomores really came into their own after some early growing pains. We lost to A and M that first semester, barely scoring 6 points, only to annihilate them twice the second semester, putting up over 40 each time and really leaving no doubt who was the better team in the end. But again, we played a completely different style of rugby from the 96 team. This can only be settled when EA Sports comes out with their much anticipated MADDEN Rice Rugby 08, when we can put teams of the past against one another. FYI, Chucky is the only player ever in MADDEN to have a 99 score in bong ability.

• 10 | ID 25 | November 2, 2007 00:37 | Matty Blunder Bayaz

  I would like to clarify which team we are talking about. Dr. Darling, I believe you are refering to the 97 team, not the 96 team (unless you played for us a senior in high school). I prefer the 96-97 notation system, to avoid any confusion. Unfortunately, that team would have been much better had the back line played to its potential. Lets just say the starting line-up was not to my liking, otherwise I think we would have won the West (instead of losing by 4 points) and would have had a better showing at nationals. But every year has its regrets.

  Blake, the 92-93 team certainly had more facial hair and balls than any pack in Rice history. They did man up againts older teams. But I would like to add that we (96-97) played the Old Boys (back when they were respectable) in a friendly. In the first half, we both had our starters out there, we were winning something like 5-0. I remember thinking, wholly shit, we actually beating these guys. I also remember the 95-96 Alumni game, when Ramsey had gathered up the old pack crew (92-93) to take us on. I won two bets that weekend, including one guy who gave me 20 points! We shut them out 19-0. As good as that pack was, especially in the scrums, as long as you kept tackling, one of the "stone hands" of the pack would eventually knock it on. But I jest because obviously many had lost their skills by not playing, though this didn't seem to phase our alums from whipping up on the collegiates. Cracking Air Force in 97 was the highlight of that era of Rice Rugby.

  Most importantly, I would like to add that the 93-94 B side team had the fastest chug team I ever saw. Butterfield, Antroy, Bresland, and bunch random dudes sure could drink.

  A final note, **Marshall Pounds** was the biggest bad-ass I ever played with. Any takers? And to all you who say the more recent Rice squads aren't big enough, the man-beast was only about 185 lbs at best, and could make opposing forwards cry.

• 11 | ID 27 | November 2, 2007 10:13 | Greg Byrne

  Best team ever? '85, no contest. A great bunch.

• 12 | ID 29 | November 24, 2007 19:52 | Playa

  the current team is on its way to a good season if we get our shit together.

• 13 | ID 31 | January 19, 2008 02:50 | MPounds

  My proudest Rice Rugby moment was watching the '96-97 team beat Air Force. We sure couldn't beat those bastards in previous years.