(03-24-2013 05:45 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would it have been better if we had run out to a 10-0 lead against UCLA then given up up 19 including a late 1st qtr TD?

On the question of preparation as evidenced by play in the first quarter, yes starting with a 10-0 lead is to be preferred.

That is actually the complementary evidence to our high frequency of slow starts. Go back and count how many 14-0 leads we have built in the last six years--I'll bet it's darned few

I said we failed 13 times, and it's still not bad enough for you?

Starting with a 10-0 lead and then giving up 19 shows better prep?

What kind of preparation is evidenced by giving up nineteen points at the end in the first quarter? Is it better to do that at at this end rather than that end? There will be ten points scored by Team A and nineteen scored by Team B during period C. Distribute them in any way you like, the score is still 19-10 at the end of the period. At the end of the period, the net is still -9.

Maybe if WMD had said the end of the first possesion, or the first 5 minutes, it would have been better and more indicative of the prep, but he said the end of the first quarter, so that is the time period i used, and I used it all.

I guess it is evidence of whatever one wants it to be evidence of.

Our fastest start ended in a loss, proving...what?

I think preparation encompasses a lot more than the first quarter. To me, preparation means readiness to handle every situation that may need to be handled in order to win the game. You're extremely unlikely, obviously, to find out how well your two-minute drill is prepared during the first quarter.

I do think it's not unreasonable to infer that a team that comes out and immediately falls behind 28-0 was probably not well prepared. But a team that cannot run the four-minute offense to run out the clock and preserve a win in the fourth quarter is also unprepared.

This is a tempest in a teapot. Preparedness is a subjective judgement, and each of us will judge it differently. I was just intrigued by WMD using a specific time period to define it - the end of the first quarter. I started wondering what quantifiable measures we could use and immediately jumped to the one that is used to to quantify overall success - score. But perhaps I could have used first downs, or yards gained, or PBUs.

Whatever. You will now be returned to your regular programming.

As usual, no inference should be made regarding my opinion of the extension.

(03-24-2013 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:31 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-23-2013 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A string of double digit win seasons in a row would almost certainly get him hired away pretty quickly, and that's a price I would gladly pay to get those wins. If somebody made him an offer, I would be far more inclined to wish him well than to try to meet it.

Understand your reasoning behind your entire post, with the exception of the last sentence. I tend to agree with Fort Bend Owl's post right before yours.
I knew our string of wins at the end of last year was possible, and deep down was hoping for it to happen. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised that it did. I think if we were to string together double digit wins, and an offer came in, IF we had the capacity to match it or even exceed it, we should probably think hard about doing so.
If he recruits well and the players believe in him, I would be very hesitant to assume that a new coach would be expected to maintain where we are (again, talking about back to back seasons).
At the point you described, we would have been to 4 bowls in 8 years, and three double-digit win seasons. Past history suggests that isn't something to take lightly.
Obviously we don't have either of those back to back seasons yet. So that argument is way premature. But I wanted to address it since you mentioned it.

My last comment is not based on any of the above, nor is it necessarily counter to anything FBO posted.

I've never been a believer in matching offers. When I was in business, if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, I wished them well. My experience has been that if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, both sides were better off parting company amicably. If someone gets far enough in the process to want to leave, it's probably best that they leave.

I am aware of two situations where coaches at Rice received offers from outside and persuaded to stay. In both cases, I think they were less effective coaches afterwards and their loss of effectiveness was related in at least some way to post-decision regret. I'm also aware of one case where the offer was not met and the coach was allowed to leave, although perhaps not amicably. I think we were better off with him gone.

I'm just not a fan of getting into a bidding war to keep people who have decided to leave. If I were in this business, I would tend to do coaching contracts with low buyouts both ways. If he/she is tired of us, let him/her go. If we are tired of him/her, let us get rid of him/her.

Depends on the situation. I see your point. However, if we're paying significantly less than market, and we have no mandate NOT to pay market, I think it's not fair to blame a coach for using a 'market' offer to get Rice to get their pay up to 'market' conditions.

This again is all assuming the two back to back 10 win seasons you hypothesized about.

(03-24-2013 07:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Depends on the situation. I see your point. However, if we're paying significantly less than market, and we have no mandate NOT to pay market, I think it's not fair to blame a coach for using a 'market' offer to get Rice to get their pay up to 'market' conditions.
This again is all assuming the two back to back 10 win seasons you hypothesized about.

There is one other factor. When we hired David, the finalists were David Bailiff and Larry Coker. I don't even recall any other finalist when we hired Todd. Neither situation attracted a large pool of quality applicants.

Why not? Because Rice was largely viewed as a "dead-end" job where "you can't win." 45 years between bowls, one conference championship (shared) in 50 years, none in 12, no more than 8 wins in a season in 60 years, looks like that. If we did go 13-1 this fall, assuming the almost prohibitively likely case that aTm would be the 1, that would mean a conference championship, the fourth bowl game and third bowl win in eight years, and the third double-digit winning season in seven. There would be a vast difference in the quality of the applicant pool and that would greatly enhance our chances of finding an outstanding successor.

There are plenty of exceptional coaches out there who are willing to make below market money for a few years in exchange for an opportunity to build a resume that will land them a major gig. A "dead end" school where "you can't win" does not look like that kind of opportunity. A school that has 4 bowls, 3 bowl wins, 3 double-digit winning seasons, and a conference championship in 8 years does.

(03-24-2013 05:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've never been a believer in matching offers. When I was in business, if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, I wished them well. My experience has been that if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, both sides were better off parting company amicably. If someone gets far enough in the process to want to leave, it's probably best that they leave.

I am aware of two situations where coaches at Rice received offers from outside and persuaded to stay. In both cases, I think they were less effective coaches afterwards and their loss of effectiveness was related in at least some way to post-decision regret. I'm also aware of one case where the offer was not met and the coach was allowed to leave, although perhaps not amicably. I think we were better off with him gone.

It seems that one of those cases would be Wayne Graham, who I think subsequently made about 3 trips to the CWS in four years.

I'm not sure if you mean Todd Graham in the counter-example. I think Scott Thompson was given a matching offer, and the common wisdom among the parliament - true or not - is that both parties would've been better off if he stayed.

Expanding the sample size, TCU and Gary Patterson are probably both much better off having probably weathered multiple offers.

I actually respect your opinion a lot here on this issue, and the scenario you paint is pretty good. I'm a bit more conservative in thinking that Rice in particular requires a bit more stability. But, it seems to me that counter-offers have to be taken on a case by case basis.

On another note, when I posted on this thread, I was thinking in terms of a three year contract, not a three year extension. I think by the time that Rice again faces the possibility of deciding whether it may be time to part ways, Rice will face two years salary buyout.

(03-24-2013 09:11 PM)I45owl Wrote:  It seems that one of those cases would be Wayne Graham, who I think subsequently made about 3 trips to the CWS in four years.
I'm not sure if you mean Todd Graham in the counter-example. I think Scott Thompson was given a matching offer, and the common wisdom among the parliament - true or not - is that both parties would've been better off if he stayed.
Expanding the sample size, TCU and Gary Patterson are probably both much better off having probably weathered multiple offers.
I actually respect your opinion a lot here on this issue, and the scenario you paint is pretty good. I'm a bit more conservative in thinking that Rice in particular requires a bit more stability. But, it seems to me that counter-offers have to be taken on a case by case basis.
On another note, when I posted on this thread, I was thinking in terms of a three year contract, not a three year extension. I think by the time that Rice again faces the possibility of deciding whether it may be time to part ways, Rice will face two years salary buyout.

I meant Todd as the counter-example. Wayne and Scott were not included, in Wayne's case because I don't think he has seriously considered offers to leave and in Scott's case because Rice really didn't make a competitive offer to retain him. I was talking about situations where a serious offer to leave was made, the coach was ready to leave, and Rice countered to keep him/her. At least one of the two would probably be a major surprise to most people on here.

Again, I think the big fear on here is that if Bailiff walked, we would hire another Jerry Berndt. If we are perceived as a dead end job where you can't win, I think that fear is valid. Given our decision-by-committee hiring process, that fear might still be valid. But the discouraging thing to me about the 2006 and 2007 hiring process was the thin quality of the applicant pool. If we did win 12 or 13 this fall and Bailiff somehow did get hired away, I'm guessing we'd attract the attention of probably 100 1-FBS coordinators, and a large number of 1-FCS head coaches, and that would be vastly more quality candidates than we had in either 2006 or 2007. I don't trust our process not to make a mistake, but it would be harder to do so with a better pool of applicants. And even the worst case would be better than the worst case has been in quite some time.

(03-24-2013 10:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we did win 12 or 13 this fall and Bailiff somehow did get hired away, I'm guessing we'd attract the attention of probably 100 1-FBS coordinators, and a large number of 1-FCS head coaches, and that would be vastly more quality candidates than we had in either 2006 or 2007. I don't trust our process not to make a mistake, but it would be harder to do so with a better pool of applicants. And even the worst case would be better than the worst case has been in quite some time.

Makes sense to me.

(03-24-2013 10:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [If we did win 12 or 13 this fall and Bailiff somehow did get hired away, I'm guessing we'd attract the attention of probably 100 1-FBS coordinators, and a large number of 1-FCS head coaches, and that would be vastly more quality candidates than we had in either 2006 or 2007. I don't trust our process not to make a mistake, but it would be harder to do so with a better pool of applicants. And even the worst case would be better than the worst case has been in quite some time.

Reviewing this thread, it appears to me that the act of extending DB has served to raise expectations on this board. While previously there were discussions of "minimum acceptable win totals" of 7 or 8, following the extension there is now active speculation of 13-1.

I wonder if we are wandering into confirmation bias or whatever the decision science term is. We have behaved as if DB has met the minimum acceptable performance standard, and therefore we now expect him to perform at that level. Given the large number of returning starters and the weak schedule, 13-1 is entirely possible, and it is seductive to leap from possible to probable or highly probable. I think 13-1 is somewhat improbable, I hope I'm wrong, but I celebrate the raising of expectations.

We have behaved as if DB is on the same path as Gary Anderson at Utah State. The results say different. USU went to La Tech with a true soph QB and punched them in the nose hard early, and held on to win the game and the conference. We went in with a redshirt Jr. QB and were down 21-0 before we got a first down.

Yes, the difference can be rationalized by saying, "Transitive property doesn't work" or "It was only Week 3 and our coordinators had not yet found their strides", but the cold, cold fact is that Barry Alvarez hired the USU coach and probably doesn't even know the name of our coach.

If we go 13-1, people will know the name of the Rice coach.

(03-25-2013 06:50 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 10:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If we did win 12 or 13 this fall and Bailiff somehow did get hired away, I'm guessing we'd attract the attention of probably 100 1-FBS coordinators, and a large number of 1-FCS head coaches, and that would be vastly more quality candidates than we had in either 2006 or 2007. I don't trust our process not to make a mistake, but it would be harder to do so with a better pool of applicants. And even the worst case would be better than the worst case has been in quite some time.

Reviewing this thread, it appears to me that the act of extending DB has served to raise expectations on this board. While previously there were discussions of "minimum acceptable win totals" of 7 or 8, following the extension there is now active speculation of 13-1.
I wonder if we are wandering into confirmation bias or whatever the decision science term is. We have behaved as if DB has met the minimum acceptable performance standard, and therefore we now expect him to perform at that level. Given the large number of returning starters and the weak schedule, 13-1 is entirely possible, and it is seductive to leap from possible to probable or highly probable. I think 13-1 is somewhat improbable, I hope I'm wrong, but I celebrate the raising of expectations.
We have behaved as if DB is on the same path as Gary Anderson at Utah State. The results say different. USU went to La Tech with a true soph QB and punched them in the nose hard early, and held on to win the game and the conference. We went in with a redshirt Jr. QB and were down 21-0 before we got a first down.
Yes, the difference can be rationalized by saying, "Transitive property doesn't work" or "It was only Week 3 and our coordinators had not yet found their strides", but the cold, cold fact is that Barry Alvarez hired the USU coach and probably doesn't even know the name of our coach.
If we go 13-1, people will know the name of the Rice coach.

Let me be clear, my discussion of 13-1 was purely hypothetical, in response to other comments.

To reiterate what I've posted before, given the returning talent and the schedule, my minimum acceptable win total for the coming year is 10. My most likely expectation is 7 or 8, because there will be the usual three games or so that we show up dreadfully unprepared. For the record, last year my minimum acceptable number was 8-9, and I took flak for "unreasonable" expectations. We won 6 (7 counting the bowl) and there were 3 that we didn't show up prepared for (UH and Memphis, obviously, and I'll also include Marshall), so 9 wasn't unreasonable at all.

I would love to have the problem of, "Hey, we just went 13-1 and our coach got hired away by ESU. What do we do now?" I'd actually love to have that problem EVERY year. Why? Because we have to go 13-1 to have that problem, and I'd be ecstatic with 13-1 every year. And coming off 13-1, we should be able to hire the best coach we have had since maybe Jess left.

I'm afraid David Bailiff will never give us that problem.

(03-25-2013 06:50 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Reviewing this thread, it appears to me that the act of extending DB has served to raise expectations on this board. While previously there were discussions of "minimum acceptable win totals" of 7 or 8, following the extension there is now active speculation of 13-1.

I wonder if we are wandering into confirmation bias or whatever the decision science term is. We have behaved as if DB has met the minimum

If there is a confirmation bias, it has nothing to do with the contract on my part. I have been on record for months saying I thought any coach that came in could win 8-9 wins with the schedule that we have next year. I don't think 8 wins would be acceptable from coach Bailiff next year, that would be a huge disappointment to me. I may be off my rocker and don't generally claim to have good predictive skills, but it just looks to me like the table is set for Rice to have a great season next year.

(03-25-2013 07:39 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I have been on record for months saying I thought any coach that came in could win 8-9 wins with the schedule that we have next year.

I agree. which is why I don't understand giving a 3 year extension to a coach who has only won 8 games one time in 6 years and has never beaten the division rival that we have to beat in order to achieve our goals.

(03-25-2013 07:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me be clear, my discussion of 13-1 was purely hypothetical, in response to other comments.

I would love to have the problem of, "Hey, we just went 13-1 and our coach got hired away by ESU. What do we do now?" I'd actually love to have that problem EVERY year. Why? Because we have to go 13-1 to have that problem, and I'd be ecstatic with 13-1 every year. And coming off 13-1, we should be able to hire the best coach we have had since maybe Jess left.

I'm afraid David Bailiff will never give us that problem.

I understand and agree completely with your point of view. My observation was that after you posted your hypothetical, the thread began discussing it as somewhere on the spectrum from plausible to likely. I did not mean to imply that you were presenting 13-1 as likely

My hypothesis is that the thread would have taken a different tack before the extension became reality, with 13-1 remaining far in the zone of improbable hypothetical.

My bottom line is that we have rewarded substandard performance, and I don't think that is the path to organizational effectiveness.

(03-25-2013 09:45 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 07:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let me be clear, my discussion of 13-1 was purely hypothetical, in response to other comments.

I would love to have the problem of, "Hey, we just went 13-1 and our coach got hired away by ESU. What do we do now?" I'd actually love to have that problem EVERY year. Why? Because we have to go 13-1 to have that problem, and I'd be ecstatic with 13-1 every year. And coming off 13-1, we should be able to hire the best coach we have had since maybe Jess left.

I'm afraid David Bailiff will never give us that problem.

I understand and agree completely with your point of view. My observation was that after you posted your hypothetical, the thread began discussing it as somewhere on the spectrum from plausible to likely. I did not mean to imply that you were presenting 13-1 as likely

My hypothesis is that the thread would have taken a different tack before the extension became reality, with 13-1 remaining far in the zone of improbable hypothetical.

My bottom line is that we have rewarded substandard performance, and I don't think that is the path to organizational effectiveness.

I don't think anyone has been posting or focusing on 13-1. It was posed here as a hypothetical only. Not in any of my posts.

Moving off of 13-1 and back to empirical reality.

Let's say we go 10-3, losing to TAMU, Tulsa and and an inferior opponent to be named later, finish 2nd in CUSA West and win a bowl game. Call it 2008 redux.

At that point, there will be a lot of champagne flowing here and the extension will be hailed as a shrewd move. Coach will have exceeded the "minimum acceptable number of wins" and won his 2nd consecutive bowl game.

But the celebration will be unwarranted, IMHO, because we will not have moved closer to where we want/need to be.

I believe the upside with DB is this: oscillating between winning 10 and losing close to Tulsa and winning 6 and getting blown out by La Tech. I call that "upside" because empirically 6 has more often a ceiling, not a floor.

I just don't think that upside is high enough to merit an extension.

(03-25-2013 09:40 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-25-2013 07:39 AM)I45owl Wrote:  I have been on record for months saying I thought any coach that came in could win 8-9 wins with the schedule that we have next year.

I agree. which is why I don't understand giving a 3 year extension to a coach who has only won 8 games one time in 6 years and has never beaten the division rival that we have to beat in order to achieve our goals.

Agree with both. I'm going to go on record here (again) and say that 9-10 has to be achieved given the schedule, the number of returning starters and the coaching tenure.

One or two makes sense. 3 follows the same pattern displayed by Athletics management with DB in 2008 and Braun last year.

(03-25-2013 11:18 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Moving off of 13-1 and back to empirical reality.

Let's say we go 10-3, losing to TAMU, Tulsa and and an inferior opponent to be named later, finish 2nd in CUSA West and win a bowl game. Call it 2008 redux.

At that point, there will be a lot of champagne flowing here and the extension will be hailed as a shrewd move. Coach will have exceeded the "minimum acceptable number of wins" and won his 2nd consecutive bowl game.

But the celebration will be unwarranted, IMHO, because we will not have moved closer to where we want/need to be.

I believe the upside with DB is this: oscillating between winning 10 and losing close to Tulsa and winning 6 and getting blown out by La Tech. I call that "upside" because empirically 6 has more often a ceiling, not a floor.

I just don't think that upside is high enough to merit an extension.

Well, if it happens, I'll be enjoying the champagne after a bowl win while you grind your teeth.

Or, you know, we could just beat Tulsa and win the West. That would work too.

I will enjoy the bowl win. I enjoyed this year's bowl win. I'm not romantic, but I'm not so cynical as to root for Rice to fail in hopes that it will effect change.

The bowl win should be baked in. The question is whether this extension increases or decreases the likelihood of higher achievements and greater consistency of success.

(03-24-2013 07:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 07:20 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Depends on the situation. I see your point. However, if we're paying significantly less than market, and we have no mandate NOT to pay market, I think it's not fair to blame a coach for using a 'market' offer to get Rice to get their pay up to 'market' conditions.
This again is all assuming the two back to back 10 win seasons you hypothesized about.

There is one other factor. When we hired David, the finalists were David Bailiff and Larry Coker. I don't even recall any other finalist when we hired Todd. Neither situation attracted a large pool of quality applicants.

Why not? Because Rice was largely viewed as a "dead-end" job where "you can't win." 45 years between bowls, one conference championship (shared) in 50 years, none in 12, no more than 8 wins in a season in 60 years, looks like that. If we did go 13-1 this fall, assuming the almost prohibitively likely case that aTm would be the 1, that would mean a conference championship, the fourth bowl game and third bowl win in eight years, and the third double-digit winning season in seven. There would be a vast difference in the quality of the applicant pool and that would greatly enhance our chances of finding an outstanding successor.

There are plenty of exceptional coaches out there who are willing to make below market money for a few years in exchange for an opportunity to build a resume that will land them a major gig. A "dead end" school where "you can't win" does not look like that kind of opportunity. A school that has 4 bowls, 3 bowl wins, 3 double-digit winning seasons, and a conference championship in 8 years does.

I am not 100% sure of all of them, but based on my memory here are some names of coaches that either applied for or were interviewed in 2006 or 2008: Jim Harbaugh (now HC of SF 49ers), Larry Fedora (now HC of UNC Tarheels), Kevin Sumlin (now HC of Tx A&M), Les Koenning (now OC of Miss. St.), Mike Shultz (OC of TCU). Not exactly chopped liver...

(03-25-2013 11:18 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Moving off of 13-1 and back to empirical reality.

Let's say we go 10-3, losing to TAMU, Tulsa and and an inferior opponent to be named later, finish 2nd in CUSA West and win a bowl game. Call it 2008 redux.

At that point, there will be a lot of champagne flowing here and the extension will be hailed as a shrewd move. Coach will have exceeded the "minimum acceptable number of wins" and won his 2nd consecutive bowl game.

But the celebration will be unwarranted, IMHO, because we will not have moved closer to where we want/need to be.

I guess you will have to reiterate the goals. I think winning 10 and winning another bowl game will help our public image. which will help us in our quest for a better berth. I am not as sure as you that conference selection committees parse the schedule as much as we do. But in any case, it is a positive step.

My personal goals for the team in 2013 have not changed with this extension. Still to win the next game, every week.