(11-23-2013 12:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We don't want to play anyone but a power conference in a bowl. I get why it's better for us if that's who we get to play. I'm NOT against playing the best opponent we can schedule in a bowl, and if it's from a power conference and we win, that's the best of all worlds. But the fact is that the teams from the MWC, MAC, Sunbelt, AAC, whatever, don't want to play us in a bowl for all the same reasons that we don't want to play them.

I get your point on everything else, Rick... mea culpa

to the above, So it isn't really "smack" to say so. We don't want to play them because beating them brings little positive recognition to the program and losing to them is damaging. It's not smack or entitlement if it is true, right?

Quote:At any rate, my post that you were 'banging your head' over was simply agreeing with him, that we act the same way as the ESU's when given the chance. And that the ESU's and in fact other non-power conference schools apply the same treatment to us.

But don't we act the same way with regard to academics? There are nice ways to say it and rude ways, but the fact of the matter is, UH isn't nearly the academic school we are. Again, it's not smack or entitlement if it's true. We strive for excellence in academics... not relative to other schools in our conference, or other schools in Texas, but against the entire world AND against the more esoteric, but everyone knows what this means, definition of excellent.

Quote:We end up having the same disrespect for our opponents that UT fans, A&M fans and others had for us in the past.

I get that, but the only reason is that these schools we are 'disrespecting' are the ones our record is against. We're playing and beating teams ranked below 80... and most of them ranked below 100. We're not disrespecting "UAB", we're disrespecting the low bar of having a great record against teams in the bottom half of our competitive universe. We can be nice and talk about poorly ranked teams or we can be more rude (but also more obvious) and name them.

The problem as I see it is that in your efforts to be what I can only describe as more PC or sensitive, you give the impression, intentional or not, that you are satisfied with our performance and would be happy if we merely continued to do exactly what we are doing.

The Board of trustees job is to protect the endowment. In my former profession, I referred to this as being paid to say no. No is the easy answer. No is the safe answer. Doing what we did last year is the default and any change from this position puts them at risk. This is different from a board of directors who get paid to advance the program.... and different from (as an example) UH who are aggressively trying to improve their academic reputation as opposed to ours, who are more focused on keeping our spot.

Let's be honest. Spending $5mm more on sports overall wouldn't remotely bankrupt us and we would undoubtably field better teams as a result... but we don't do it because the BOT apparently doesn't believe that it is in our best interests to do so... Thus the ONLY way to get them to make significant changes to the status quo is to show them that "no" and doing what we have done in the past is actually a RISKY answer. The McKinsey report alluded to this based on the academic reputation of our peers. Half of our conference doesn't even appear on the USNWR list.... and most of those who are, are listed on par with UH, whom we jokingly (but not entirely) thumbed our noses at for decades. Unfortunately that means that we have to somewhat disrespect our opponents on occasion to make that point, and some people are less PC than they should be.... but while we can be happy that we are 8-3 against this schedule as opposed to 3-8... you MUST admit that this is a pretty low bar that we are clearing.... and all we're arguing about is whether we are barely clearing it or clearing it by a foot. It doesn't matter, because by the measures that matter (being of National significance) we have to clear a much higher bar. In my parlance, it's the difference between making a 50 yard field goal by ten yards and making a 60 yard field goal. You can only make a 60 yard field goal if you attempt it... and you don't get any extra points for making the 50 yarder by an inch or by 20 yards. The longest kick I think I ever made was from 47 yards. I put it in the seats ABOVE the tunnel... would probably have been good from close to 70 yards... but by any measure that mattered to anyone but me, it was still only worth 3 points and from 47.

I hope I'm being clear... because I often obviously am not... and i apologize... because I KNOW that you are a supporter... that you love sports and that you respect athletes... THAT is why I bang my head, because clearly I'm not being clear... I note this because your responses always go to the fact that we are being disrespectful to our opponents, and that is true... but the REASON why we are being disrespectful to our opponents is that it is disrespectful to our athletes and our Universities reputation (doing things BECAUSE they are hard) by setting the bar so low and seeming to be happy because we have lowered it so much that we can now clear it with some ease... and pointing this out at all times and in every way, while still trying to show our obvious support for the athletes themselves, is something that MUST happen.

In other words.. our comments ALWAYS need to be... Hey, as glad as I am that we won/did well/put up a good fight... we need to aim much much higher. I'm sorry if that is disrespectful to other schools, but if academics were a competitive sport, we would be just as "entitled" when we rightfully pointed out that beating schools in the bottom half of academia... something Rice students ALSO have at least a 9-3 record in doing, is not an appropriate measure of the academic success of the University.

(11-23-2013 12:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-23-2013 12:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  We don't want to play anyone but a power conference in a bowl. I get why it's better for us if that's who we get to play. I'm NOT against playing the best opponent we can schedule in a bowl, and if it's from a power conference and we win, that's the best of all worlds. But the fact is that the teams from the MWC, MAC, Sunbelt, AAC, whatever, don't want to play us in a bowl for all the same reasons that we don't want to play them.

I get your point on everything else, Rick... mea culpa

to the above, So it isn't really "smack" to say so. We don't want to play them because beating them brings little positive recognition to the program and losing to them is damaging. It's not smack or entitlement if it is true, right?

Quote:At any rate, my post that you were 'banging your head' over was simply agreeing with him, that we act the same way as the ESU's when given the chance. And that the ESU's and in fact other non-power conference schools apply the same treatment to us.

But don't we act the same way with regard to academics? There are nice ways to say it and rude ways, but the fact of the matter is, UH isn't nearly the academic school we are. Again, it's not smack or entitlement if it's true. We strive for excellence in academics... not relative to other schools in our conference, or other schools in Texas, but against the entire world AND against the more esoteric, but everyone knows what this means, definition of excellent.

Quote:We end up having the same disrespect for our opponents that UT fans, A&M fans and others had for us in the past.

I get that, but the only reason is that these schools we are 'disrespecting' are the ones our record is against. We're playing and beating teams ranked below 80... and most of them ranked below 100. We're not disrespecting "UAB", we're disrespecting the low bar of having a great record against teams in the bottom half of our competitive universe. We can be nice and talk about poorly ranked teams or we can be more rude (but also more obvious) and name them.

The problem as I see it is that in your efforts to be what I can only describe as more PC or sensitive, you give the impression, intentional or not, that you are satisfied with our performance and would be happy if we merely continued to do exactly what we are doing.

The Board of trustees job is to protect the endowment. In my former profession, I referred to this as being paid to say no. No is the easy answer. No is the safe answer. Doing what we did last year is the default and any change from this position puts them at risk. This is different from a board of directors who get paid to advance the program.... and different from (as an example) UH who are aggressively trying to improve their academic reputation as opposed to ours, who are more focused on keeping our spot.

Let's be honest. Spending $5mm more on sports overall wouldn't remotely bankrupt us and we would undoubtably field better teams as a result... but we don't do it because the BOT apparently doesn't believe that it is in our best interests to do so... Thus the ONLY way to get them to make significant changes to the status quo is to show them that "no" and doing what we have done in the past is actually a RISKY answer. The McKinsey report alluded to this based on the academic reputation of our peers. Half of our conference doesn't even appear on the USNWR list.... and most of those who are, are listed on par with UH, whom we jokingly (but not entirely) thumbed our noses at for decades. Unfortunately that means that we have to somewhat disrespect our opponents on occasion to make that point, and some people are less PC than they should be.... but while we can be happy that we are 8-3 against this schedule as opposed to 3-8... you MUST admit that this is a pretty low bar that we are clearing.... and all we're arguing about is whether we are barely clearing it or clearing it by a foot. It doesn't matter, because by the measures that matter (being of National significance) we have to clear a much higher bar. In my parlance, it's the difference between making a 50 yard field goal by ten yards and making a 60 yard field goal. You can only make a 60 yard field goal if you attempt it... and you don't get any extra points for making the 50 yarder by an inch or by 20 yards. The longest kick I think I ever made was from 47 yards. I put it in the seats ABOVE the tunnel... would probably have been good from close to 70 yards... but by any measure that mattered to anyone but me, it was still only worth 3 points and from 47.

I hope I'm being clear... because I often obviously am not... and i apologize... because I KNOW that you are a supporter... that you love sports and that you respect athletes... THAT is why I bang my head, because clearly I'm not being clear... I note this because your responses always go to the fact that we are being disrespectful to our opponents, and that is true... but the REASON why we are being disrespectful to our opponents is that it is disrespectful to our athletes and our Universities reputation (doing things BECAUSE they are hard) by setting the bar so low and seeming to be happy because we have lowered it so much that we can now clear it with some ease... and pointing this out at all times and in every way, while still trying to show our obvious support for the athletes themselves, is something that MUST happen.

In other words.. our comments ALWAYS need to be... Hey, as glad as I am that we won/did well/put up a good fight... we need to aim much much higher. I'm sorry if that is disrespectful to other schools, but if academics were a competitive sport, we would be just as "entitled" when we rightfully pointed out that beating schools in the bottom half of academia... something Rice students ALSO have at least a 9-3 record in doing, is not an appropriate measure of the academic success of the University.

I think we understand and appreciate each other. What we focus on is different.

I will add that (and you've probably noticed this as well), I don't really like the academic smack either. I don't think it reflects well on us when we (not addressing you, this is a vague general we) use terms like Cougar High or appear to look down our noses at LaTech academically, as two examples. I believe Rice has an outstanding academic reputation, and I think it's a lot more impressive when those outside of Rice comment on that then when we do. When people remind others of how good they are, the general response is a wish/hope for a comeuppance.

I root against UT athletics across the board. None of it has anything to do with their athletes, who in most cases I assume to be fine people with good character. Or their coaches (Augie being the exception). It has to do with long-term exposure to (what I hope to be) the minority of their fan base who are entitled, arrogant and condescending. (and some of whom have never attended a class at the school).

and that point is well taken Rick... I think most of the "smack" we talk is really directed internally and not intended as smack. Yes, it is better when other people note how good our academic reputation is, but we didn't get this academic reputation without setting a pretty high bar of achievement. That means there are people we declined admission to because they didn't meet our standards... and people who were failed out because they didn't meet our standards... and "successes" over other schools that we didn't accept as successes. An example would be that we probably have a list of schools that we consider "successes" when we get a student considering that school instead... I'm betting Harvard and Duke and Stanford and Princeton and UT plan 1 (or whatever that is) are on that list... and I'm betting that UH isn't on that list. Tulsa might be, SMU might be, Tulane might be. I suspect NOBODY in new CUSA is on that list.

We don't need academic smack because our peers are so well defined that we don't even really measure ourselves against anyone not in the top 50... It's assumed. 70+% of the teams on our football schedule don't meet the level we should set for ourselves.... and our record is poor against the 30% that does. Of course, THEY could aspire higher as well, and they do... but they, too don't put forth the resources to warrant greater success.

The biggest difference between us and them is that we HAVE the resources and the heavy lifting has been done. We not only have the money, but are located in a massive metropolitan area, offer a superior academic value, have a useful large stadium, and occupy a unique (and growing) marketing niche of "intelligent athletes." We can spend a few million and improve our athletic profile. We've already done the heavy lifting to be seen as academically elite. It's not as if these other schools could reach our academic level by spending a few more million. We looked at spending a BILLION to raise our academic profile by just a few slots. That's not smack... that is the reality of higher learning.

(11-23-2013 01:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and that point is well taken Rick... I think most of the "smack" we talk is really directed internally and not intended as smack. Yes, it is better when other people note how good our academic reputation is, but we didn't get this academic reputation without setting a pretty high bar of achievement. That means there are people we declined admission to because they didn't meet our standards... and people who were failed out because they didn't meet our standards... and "successes" over other schools that we didn't accept as successes. An example would be that we probably have a list of schools that we consider "successes" when we get a student considering that school instead... I'm betting Harvard and Duke and Stanford and Princeton and UT plan 1 (or whatever that is) are on that list... and I'm betting that UH isn't on that list. Tulsa might be, SMU might be, Tulane might be. I suspect NOBODY in new CUSA is on that list.

We don't need academic smack because our peers are so well defined that we don't even really measure ourselves against anyone not in the top 50... It's assumed. 70+% of the teams on our football schedule don't meet the level we should set for ourselves.... and our record is poor against the 30% that does. Of course, THEY could aspire higher as well, and they do... but they, too don't put forth the resources to warrant greater success.

The biggest difference between us and them is that we HAVE the resources and the heavy lifting has been done. We not only have the money, but are located in a massive metropolitan area, offer a superior academic value, have a useful large stadium, and occupy a unique (and growing) marketing niche of "intelligent athletes." We can spend a few million and improve our athletic profile. We've already done the heavy lifting to be seen as academically elite. It's not as if these other schools could reach our academic level by spending a few more million. We looked at spending a BILLION to raise our academic profile by just a few slots. That's not smack... that is the reality of higher learning.

Yep, I don't know all the details, and claim no qualification to comment. But at almost every level, I wished we had acquired the med school. I think it would've done wonders for our perception academically . . . . and this may seem odd, but I think it actually would have helped us athletically as well (unless it meant we spent even less on athletics). I believe our athletic perception improves when the overall perception of the university improves. I think other schools get that boost now.

well said... the two DO go hand in hand. Just like you have to pay a bit more to get or keep the best professors and students, we have to pay more to get and keep the best coaches and athletes. We don't have to be at the top, because a) we don't require top 10 football... merely nationally relevant... and b) because the reputation of our University (which is the primary reason MOST of these guys go to college) gives us an advantage over MOST of the Nationally relevant teams. Our conference isn't a plus on its own, but as it means we can go 8-3 while we're improving rather than be Baylor and go 3-8... and that while we may occasionally play top 10 teams, we really set our bar more at top 20 (for now) and don't HAVE to play 4+ top 20 and 2+ top 10 teams every single year.

(11-23-2013 11:12 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 08:30 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 08:05 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 07:18 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 04:43 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  OK. I'm waiting. So where the hell's this spot on, perfecto picture?

Cats don't need pitchforks. They have needle claws!

Copout!

Fine. I'll see what I can do. But needle claws are really fearsome! You don't want a herd of needle-clawed cats after you!

ETA: Voila!



I had to make that image. The concept doesn't otherwise exist on the 'net. Congratulations on your innovation! Now someone will make pr0n of it.

What a great photo --very funny. But, alas, this brilliant, witty imagery is much too flattering. These pitchfork felines appear to be far better organized than the Parliament's pitchfork cohort. I mean, they aren't biting each other. Where's the backbiting?

(11-22-2013 02:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 01:04 AM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  But I know we can play better. The below excerpt cuts out parts of Hambone's post, but I just absolutely cannot agree with the parts I left in. The second half was not at all the kind of football playing that is 'satisfactory' to me from any coach and team at the college level regardless of pay.

This week was far from our best, but overall we are paying towards the middle of CUSA and getting slightly above average CUSA results... this year and last and 2008. Certainly not every year,but the teams that fairly consistently beat us (UH and Tulsa) pay more. It's not an exact science, but it seems pretty evident. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying...

What I mean is that I don't think our bare results in a very diminished CUSA are a very good or complete test of DB's quality as a head coach. I think we've suffered from poor coaching under DB despite our improved results. I'm glad for the improved results, but DB is still a D+ grade coach for me so far this year. I think we should be able to get better coaching (better results?) from a coach making the same or less. I don't follow football, especially lower divisions, with anything like enough seriousness to put forward names. I don't think pay correlates so strongly with coaching basics or sensible coaching philosophies.

(11-22-2013 02:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bill Cousins posted earlier on Facebook that he thinks it's 10-1 talent with 5-6 coaching. Other than forgetting the 12th game, I think lots of folks on here would agree.

This is pretty much what I'm saying. Now if we manage to finish strong and wind up with a CUSA championship and a bowl win, I'll be thrilled. But I still don't make those results in themselves will make me glad DB is our coach, unless the strategically poor decisions, terrible second half 'adjustments', apparent lack of accountability, etc. all end. I would be very glad to see DB get better -- that would certainly be better than bringing in someone else.

(11-22-2013 03:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think the general consensus is that Bailiff is one heck of a fine person and AT LEAST a solid coach. How solid is a matter of opinion.

To expand: I agree that DB is a fine person. Definitely. I think he is far from a solid coach; my judgment is that he is a poor football coach.

(11-22-2013 03:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it seems pretty clear that in order to MATERIALLY change our outcomes, we are going to have to MATERIALLY change our inputs. I don't believe that there is one single consistently solid (as measured by rankings, though once again "solid" is a matter of opinion) team that doesn't spend more than we do. So if we want to get better, we need to spend more.... and again, I think the consensus is that we want to be better... Given that we have never given Bailiff the charge OR RESOURCES to be better, I think it unfair to judge him by that. Is it 5-6 coaching because that's all Bailiff is or wants, or is it because that's all he can afford?

If DB doesn't improve as a coach, then we will need to change our inputs. I don't think we necessarily need to spend more. I'm not opposed to spending more, but the deficiencies I see are basic coaching strategies, management, and coaching philosophies. I think some of the decisions (including some of Reagan's OCing) are just baffling.

(11-22-2013 04:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 03:56 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  I will just say DB has never been a bargain

You don't have to agree that he is a bargain... merely that he is roughly fair value for what we pay. We're 4th or 5th highest salary in CUSA and we're going to finish there or above. UNT is the only coach who makes less who beat him (and the differences aren't great) and he beat KU who makes 4 times what he makes.

I think you and I just disagree about the relative importance of results on paper and in the conference versus decisions we see on the ground. Now I do think that losing to UNT was a pretty important negative result, as would be not winning this CUSA with this talent after UNT lost today, but my judgment has more to do with what I see than on-paper results in bad CUSA. But I think both of our approaches are reasonable, just different. I would be glad to agree to disagree.

(11-23-2013 07:41 PM)Philoso-Owl Wrote:  If DB doesn't improve as a coach, then we will need to change our inputs. I don't think we necessarily need to spend more. I'm not opposed to spending more, but the deficiencies I see are basic coaching strategies, management, and coaching philosophies. I think some of the decisions (including some of Reagan's OCing) are just baffling.

I think Hambone's point is that if you believe there are coaching issues, you might be able to fix them with the same amount of money. However, you improver your chances of fixing them by increasing coaching salary budget so that you can open up the field more.

As Hambone has put it, we can disagree on the micro-issues like our opinions of one or more of the coaches. But, bickering over that doesn't fix the deeper financial problems the football program has. I do believe most of us agree on the macro-issue that the program is not supported well enough to achieve the excellence that the rest of the university strives for and what many here are demanding. And that is what he wants people to get behind. Let's fund this thing right so that it can have the best chance to reach its potential.

(11-21-2013 11:33 PM)Chef Owl Wrote:  Heart still pounding. Hope UNT loses. Hope ECU loses. GO RICE!

(11-22-2013 04:52 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 03:29 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-22-2013 11:27 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I'll have to listen more carefully, but I'm not sure I've heard that very often, if ever, either. However, it would be a simple way for making the distinction without throwing his guys/gals (yes, there was a female ref last night) under the bus.

It seems to me that confirmed is indicating that if the call had been made the other way and had been challenged, they would have enough evidence to overturn it. Stands as called would mean that they could never overturn it one way or the other. So, Overturned and Confirmed basically have the same affirmative meaning, usage just depending on what the original call was. In that regard, it seemed to me that had the initial call been down-by-contact, they would not have been able to overturn it based on the camera angles shown last night.

I agree your logic makes sense. I just don't recall hearing the officials (not the commentators) saying "the call stands".

But now I've got a reason to pay attention this weekend to those games for which I have no or only a passing interest.

OK. I heard the official say it in the BU vs OSU game. The receiver may have been out, but the replays weren't conclusive, and the call on the field was a catch. The ref said the call stands, not the call was confirmed.

I stand corrected.

Btw - 99 yd OSU drive for a TD after BU falls down going in at the 1 and then BU fumbles 2 plays later. 7-0 OSU. Ouch!

Well stated d1.

Philo, I understand that you see clear coaching deficiencies... I do as well. You would think that those things COULD be fixed... but we see those things time and again at this level... we just do. We notice them more when bailiff does them because we look at Bailiff much more often and much more critically.... I noted in the UNT game... 2nd and goal at the 1 and they jump offsides... 1st play after the quarter and they take a delay of the game or jump offside, can't recall... 2 minutes to go in the game and they leave a time out on the board, allowing UTSA to run the clock down to 1:20 and call a TO before attempting the FG. THAT ALONE may have cost them the game. Go take a look at the list of coaches making more and less than Bailiff... and especially when you adjust for tenure (most contracts escalate), you invariably see that teams that consistently play at a higher level than we do consistently pay more than we do. SMU and Kansas are examples of teams who pay more and get less, Fresno is an example of a team that pays less and gets more (this year). What do you think Fresno will have to pay next year?

So while I understand your point and you may well be correct... I think by far the greatest probability is that while we may be "smarter" under a different coach, something else will likely be worse (including staff turnover) resulting in fairly similar net results. You need look no further than our own history to see that. Our longest/best period was under Hatfield who is probably a hall of fame caliber coach... and we paid him more than Bailiff a long time ago.

I don't want to get so bogged down in arguing over Bailiff that we fail to fund a winner. If we can or want to replace Bailiff... fine... but PLEASE don't imply that you think that there is some STREAM of coaches out there who will "no doubt" do better with the same resources just waiting to work for us, because 99 times out of 100, a coach who outperforms his salary will move on.