+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: A post-Bailiff thread (/thread-790411.html)
A post-Bailiff thread - JustAnotherAustinOwl - 09-11-2016 08:14 AM
I've not been fully in the pro or anti Bailiff camp. I really like the guy. I wanted him to succeed. I can't see any (realistic) scenario where he should be retained.
My questions are: What are the financial, legal, and political hurdles to letting him go? I assume last season he was retained because it was felt he earned another chance with the four bowl games and conference championship and/or there was no money/will to buy him out. (I don't know what we did to keep Rhoades from going back to VCU, but I assume it expended JK's capital.)
Does he have a buyout after this year? What if he's let go mid-season?
Who are viable candidates to replace him?
Are we OK with going back to the option? (I like the option, but I know others don't.)
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Rick Gerlach - 09-11-2016 08:52 AM
(09-11-2016 08:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: I've not been fully in the pro or anti Bailiff camp. I really like the guy. I wanted him to succeed. I can't see any (realistic) scenario where he should be retained.
My questions are: What are the financial, legal, and political hurdles to letting him go? I assume last season he was retained because it was felt he earned another chance with the four bowl games and conference championship and/or there was no money/will to buy him out. (I don't know what we did to keep Rhoades from going back to VCU, but I assume it expended JK's capital.)
Does he have a buyout after this year? What if he's let go mid-season?
Who are viable candidates to replace him?
Are we OK with going back to the option? (I like the option, but I know others don't.)
The option was not the problem under Hatfield, IMO. The defense just got progressively worse from 2002-2005
A post-Bailiff thread - FresnoTXOwl - 09-11-2016 09:28 AM
With the current personnel (i.e a lot of RB talent, not as much WR talent) it seems more option would make sense, if any of the QBs could run it. German at least probably has the speed to do so.
Applewhite would be a good hire, but I don't know if he left Rice the first time because he didn't like Rice or didn't like Graham, or the QB coach position at Alabama was seen as an upgrade or had a big pay raise. He seems a no-brainer to at least talk to.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - texowl2 - 09-11-2016 09:31 AM
(09-11-2016 08:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:(09-11-2016 08:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: I've not been fully in the pro or anti Bailiff camp. I really like the guy. I wanted him to succeed. I can't see any (realistic) scenario where he should be retained.
My questions are: What are the financial, legal, and political hurdles to letting him go? I assume last season he was retained because it was felt he earned another chance with the four bowl games and conference championship and/or there was no money/will to buy him out. (I don't know what we did to keep Rhoades from going back to VCU, but I assume it expended JK's capital.)
Does he have a buyout after this year? What if he's let go mid-season?
Who are viable candidates to replace him?
Are we OK with going back to the option? (I like the option, but I know others don't.)
The option was not the problem under Hatfield, IMO. The defense just got progressively worse from 2002-2005
agree 100%
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Frizzy Owl - 09-11-2016 09:51 AM
I don't understand what's behind this talk of going back to the option. Who here believes that the problem is that Rice isn't running the option? The problem is lack of preparedness. We aren't seeing the full potential of these players or the current schemes. I don't mind the option, I just don't understand how anyone following the program can conclude that the required change is switching to an option offense.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - waltgreenberg - 09-11-2016 09:59 AM
(09-11-2016 09:51 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: I don't understand what's behind this talk of going back to the option. Who here believes that the problem is that Rice isn't running the option? The problem is lack of preparedness. We aren't seeing the full potential of these players or the current schemes. I don't mind the option, I just don't understand how anyone following the program can conclude that the required change is switching to an option offense.
Lack of preparation. Lack of Discipline. Lack of execution. Lack of fire and aggression.
And given all that, I'd argue a lack of accountability.
This is college football; not chess. A key ingredient for success is motivation. Our coaching staff simply does not light a fire under our guys, and never have. They'd rather be best friends.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - mrbig - 09-11-2016 10:04 AM
Paging Drew Mehringer. If you watched any of the social media videos from UH last year, he looks and sounds like Tom Herman Jr., is a Rice grad, and this is probably the last point on his career path (currently OC at Big 10 Rutgers) where Rice has a chance.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Tiki Owl - 09-11-2016 10:13 AM
There are advantages for us to run the option....but lack of preparation is even more of a killer if you run it.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - talon owl - 09-11-2016 10:24 AM
(09-11-2016 10:04 AM)mrbig Wrote: Paging Drew Mehringer. If you watched any of the social media videos from UH last year, he looks and sounds like Tom Herman Jr., is a Rice grad, and this is probably the last point on his career path (currently OC at Big 10 Rutgers) where Rice has a chance.
That'd be gutsy.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - RiceLad15 - 09-11-2016 10:30 AM
(09-11-2016 10:24 AM)talon owl Wrote:(09-11-2016 10:04 AM)mrbig Wrote: Paging Drew Mehringer. If you watched any of the social media videos from UH last year, he looks and sounds like Tom Herman Jr., is a Rice grad, and this is probably the last point on his career path (currently OC at Big 10 Rutgers) where Rice has a chance.
That'd be gutsy.
Unconventional wisdom?
I do wonder if he would be too green.
I also wonder if Izzo has any urge in coaching at the college level since he is now in Houston. We'd have a really good special teams if he coached here.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Tomball Owl - 09-11-2016 11:30 AM
ruowls! ruowls! ruowls!
At lease as OC.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - ExcitedOwl18 - 09-11-2016 11:40 AM
Mehringer hasn't exactly been lighting it up at Rutgers thus far. Got SMOKED by UW, and then only put up 52 against Howard, a team that Boston College beat so badly that they did running time in the second half.
Remember, Boston College had the worst offense in FBS last year.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - JustAnotherAustinOwl - 09-11-2016 12:13 PM
For the record, I'm not arguing for the option per se, but I do think the arguments for a contrarian offense make sense, and I'm not football smart enough to know of others.
If, for the sake of argument, Ken Niumatalolo was interested, I'd be 100% behind hiring him. (Not a realistic scenario, I realize.)
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - WIowl - 09-11-2016 12:24 PM
(09-11-2016 12:13 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: For the record, I'm not arguing for the option per se, but I do think the arguments for a contrarian offense make sense, and I'm not football smart enough to know of others.
If, for the sake of argument, Ken Niumatalolo was interested, I'd be 100% behind hiring him. (Not a realistic scenario, I realize.)
Well Bailiff is getting $925k a year, we can find a protege of Ken or someone similar.
Bailiff is also on "edge of hot seat" on the coachinghotseat website, maybe others are starting to notice the warm seat.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Riceman2004 - 09-11-2016 12:47 PM
So where are we really with his contract? I'm of the opinion that all things being equal if this is another soft year that they'll want to let him go but that there isn't the money in the budget or boosters who will step up to pay for two head coaches for more than a year. We just don't have the money (or rather don't want to use it at football) and it's surprising to me that in all of the noise, no one ever really seems to realize how much of a factor this is int he decision-making.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Tomball Owl - 09-11-2016 01:28 PM
The Administration has always found money to extend his contract. If they want to stay in D1/FBS, they need to find the money to buy him out.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - mrbig - 09-11-2016 01:31 PM
(09-11-2016 12:47 PM)Riceman2004 Wrote: So where are we really with his contract? I'm of the opinion that all things being equal if this is another soft year that they'll want to let him go but that there isn't the money in the budget or boosters who will step up to pay for two head coaches for more than a year. We just don't have the money (or rather don't want to use it at football) and it's surprising to me that in all of the noise, no one ever really seems to realize how much of a factor this is int he decision-making.
I don't think it is something people do not realize or consider, but no one knows what the buyout terms are. Lacking details, it is hard to discuss them in any meaningful manner, they can really just be discussed in the abstract.
Regardless of what they are, I think continuing under Bailiff costs more to Rice than ponying up for another coach. Heck, promoting an interim coach from within (Sloan? Patterson?) at least sends some signal that the current product is unacceptable.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - temchugh - 09-11-2016 02:18 PM
Based on the last news release regarding a Bailiff contract extension, his current contract runs through the 2018 season:
http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/rice-awards-david-bailiff-five-season-contract-extension/
Thus, the buy out at the end of this year would be $1.8 million, max. In most contracts, the buy out is not 100% of future salary.
The University invests >$20 million in the athletics dept every year, presumably because they find it to be beneficial to the University. Specifically, it is good marketing for the University. I have a hard time believing that the University would decide to retain Bailiff at the end of the season because the cost of replacing him is too high. (However, I was very confident that they would replace him at the end of last season, so what do I know.)
There seems to be almost universal agreement that you can't run a football program with a coach on the last year of his contract, so you would have to extend him or buy him out at the end of next season anyway.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - temchugh - 09-11-2016 02:27 PM
(09-11-2016 08:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: I've not been fully in the pro or anti Bailiff camp. I really like the guy. I wanted him to succeed. I can't see any (realistic) scenario where he should be retained.
My questions are: What are the financial, legal, and political hurdles to letting him go? I assume last season he was retained because it was felt he earned another chance with the four bowl games and conference championship and/or there was no money/will to buy him out. (I don't know what we did to keep Rhoades from going back to VCU, but I assume it expended JK's capital.)
Does he have a buyout after this year? What if he's let go mid-season?
Who are viable candidates to replace him?
Are we OK with going back to the option? (I like the option, but I know others don't.)
Seems to me like you go with the best available coach and then let the new coach decide what kind of offense to install.
I imagine that JK thought Rhodes was the best available Mens BB coach. I seriously doubt that JK decided that the havoc defense gave Mens BB the best shot at success and then chose the coach based on that decision.
RE: A post-Bailiff thread - Bay Area Owl - 09-11-2016 03:02 PM
How long was Bailiff's contract extension after the 2008 season?
I think he had four seasons under contract when hired in 2007. I think the extension in 2008 was perhaps for three additional season until 2013. Too generous for one successful year, I think, proved with 2009's disastrous 2-10 season.
Bailiff obviously didn't merit any further extension with the 2009, 2010, and 2011 performances, a period I am surprised he survived. With Greenspan as AD, Bailiff was allowed to coast. I can't remember if Bailiff got any reward for the mixed-bag 2012 season, but I can't imagine he only had one year on his contract going into 2013. He must have gotten something added after 2012, which makes the 2013 re-up even less excusable.
I was always critical of the 5-year extension after 2013, even at the time. While New Mexico was interested after 2008, no other program was looking at Bailiff after 2013, because they could easily see the overall track record. Why did Bailiff deserve a reward for one successful year, when Rice had already rewarded him with extreme patience from 2009 through 2012?? At best, Bailiff should have received a one-year rollover, but locking into a 5-year deal with Bailiff was a major mistake by Joe Karlgaard.
The narrative of Bailiff's contract is that Rice rewards him handsomely after a single successful season, while Rice endures the burdens of the generous contract for year after year of poor performances.