(03-05-2015 05:47 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  Well, this is an interesting change from past years' recruiting threads, which have tended towards the delusional side IMO.

maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

(03-05-2015 11:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

Yeah, I have commented before on the irony of recruiting hype being used to criticize the coaches.

Recruits are even more popular than the backup QB.

(03-06-2015 12:17 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

Yeah, I have commented before on the irony of recruiting hype being used to criticize the coaches.
Recruits are even more popular than the backup QB.

I haven't read or heard much criticism, if any, about freshmen not starting. Have you?

What I have read and heard is criticism about not giving more playing time to underclassmen. That's a philosophical issue. Bailiff rides his starters. Other coaches play more players. There are arguments for and against each approach.

(03-06-2015 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:17 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

Yeah, I have commented before on the irony of recruiting hype being used to criticize the coaches.
Recruits are even more popular than the backup QB.

I haven't read or heard much criticism, if any, about freshmen not starting. Have you?

What I have read and heard is criticism about not giving more playing time to underclassmen. That's a philosophical issue. Bailiff rides his starters. Other coaches play more players. There are arguments for and against each approach.

I do remember reading on this board criticisms of freshmen not starting here at Rice, with thoughts that those freshmen were good enough to make the athletic transition from high school. I think it is important to recognize, however, that there is also a transition academically (study demands, time management, competition in the classroom - a great deal of stress that more than likely was not present in high school) for our players. And one more thing, from further back in time (years ago), I remember reading many posts on this board stating a need for a good redshirt program.

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:17 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

Yeah, I have commented before on the irony of recruiting hype being used to criticize the coaches.
Recruits are even more popular than the backup QB.

I haven't read or heard much criticism, if any, about freshmen not starting. Have you?

What I have read and heard is criticism about not giving more playing time to underclassmen. That's a philosophical issue. Bailiff rides his starters. Other coaches play more players. There are arguments for and against each approach.

I do remember reading on this board criticisms of freshmen not starting here at Rice, with thoughts that those freshmen were good enough to make the athletic transition from high school. I think it is important to recognize, however, that there is also a transition academically (study demands, time management, competition in the classroom - a great deal of stress that more than likely was not present in high school) for our players. And one more thing, from further back in time (years ago), I remember reading many posts on this board stating a need for a good redshirt program.

I think two themes are being conflated here.

One is the idea that Bailiff favors seniority over talent, that he gives PT and starting positions to seniors out of loyalty while keeping more talented freshmen on the bench. The idea that recruiting is getting better and better is cited as support for this idea.

Two is that he does not use garbage time effectively to get second- and third-teamers, especially underclassmen, PT in games that are effectively decided.

The first would including starting, the second obviously not.

I agree with the second, not the first.

I hope that explains it.

(03-06-2015 07:27 AM)ArmChairOwl Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 06:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 12:17 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 11:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  maybe if we are more realistic about the freshmen, we won't have so many people wanting most of them to start.

Yeah, I have commented before on the irony of recruiting hype being used to criticize the coaches.
Recruits are even more popular than the backup QB.

I haven't read or heard much criticism, if any, about freshmen not starting. Have you?
What I have read and heard is criticism about not giving more playing time to underclassmen. That's a philosophical issue. Bailiff rides his starters. Other coaches play more players. There are arguments for and against each approach.

I do remember reading on this board criticisms of freshmen not starting here at Rice, with thoughts that those freshmen were good enough to make the athletic transition from high school. I think it is important to recognize, however, that there is also a transition academically (study demands, time management, competition in the classroom - a great deal of stress that more than likely was not present in high school) for our players. And one more thing, from further back in time (years ago), I remember reading many posts on this board stating a need for a good redshirt program.

Maybe it's perception, but I just don't recall that much about not starting freshmen. Maybe a bit about Driphus versus McHargue, but even those discussions seemed more about giving Driphus some playing time rather than starting him over McHargue.

I think there's been a lot of talking past each other on this. I'm philosophically inclined toward those coaches who use a lot of players, and thus would like to see more playing time for the bench, but I don't think we've had many, if any, freshmen who should have been starting. I tend more toward skepticism about going nuts over individual recruits and acting like some kid who has yet to play a down of college football is going to be the savior of the program, as some have had a tendency to do. I don't get excited about recruits or freshmen. I save my excitement until they actually do it on the field at this level. I do think we'd be better off getting more people on the field more often--develop depth faster, reduce injuries, and a fresh backup is often better than a tired starter.

Shouldn't we keep these commitments confidential so they wont be stolen from us ? http://www.csnbbs.com/images/smilies/03-shhhh.gif

(03-14-2015 10:46 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  It's become pretty obvious that we're going after bigger players now, and getting them.

(03-16-2015 12:00 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Shouldn't we keep these commitments confidential so they wont be stolen from us ?

I do not think that is really possible. Even if Rice stays silent, the player is going to tell his family, friends, and teammates. At least one of them will tweet or comment about it. After all, they have the player's best interests at heart, not Rice's.

Also, I don't think that would send a good message to recruits. They are teenage kids and even the most humble of them will take pride in their accomplishments. Asking them to be all hush-hush suggests that either they shouldn't be proud, or there is nothing to be proud about.

(03-16-2015 12:19 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 12:00 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  Shouldn't we keep these commitments confidential so they wont be stolen from us ?

I do not think that is really possible. Even if Rice stays silent, the player is going to tell his family, friends, and teammates. At least one of them will tweet or comment about it. After all, they have the player's best interests at heart, not Rice's.
Also, I don't think that would send a good message to recruits. They are teenage kids and even the most humble of them will take pride in their accomplishments. Asking them to be all hush-hush suggests that either they shouldn't be proud, or there is nothing to be proud about.

Fred very much liked announcing commitments, as he thought the announcements created favorable momentum for the whole recruiting process. Ken didn't like announcing them. I never fully understood his rationale. Under Bailiff, we are back to announcing them. I think most programs announce them as fast as they can.

Hey there nightowl. Good to hear from you.

I think the high school coaches promote their kids to as many colleges as possible, in order to get the best offers for the kid. So it really isn't possible to hide them. Apparently the key is to get on the kid early and try to get him to make up his mind, before the onslaught. Bailiff enjoys a great relationship with hi school coaches in Tx, so a lot of them call him when they have a kid that may be flying under the radar, and as such we get in first.

Its a double edged sword. Some of your coaches are out there really promoting their kids and want them to go where it best fits them. There are also coaches out there that are actively advising against kids coming to rice and other schools. I have had several kids that wanted to come to rice but my word got trumped by a head coach that advised a kid against Rice because HE didn't feel the football was good enough for his player. Recruiting is an art and coming from Rice you have to fight so many battles. I commend the coaches for being able to upgrade the quality of players yearly. Three years bowling in a row, keep up the good work.....and welcome to the ones that have given early commits. I no longer coach so my inside line is a bit tempered now.....I do have future athletes coming up in the house hold though....lol...gotta keep them under wraps though....hahahaha

As the perception of Rice football changes, I think the practice of coaches persuading their kids to go elsewhere will end. We have a good program now that's growing.

that is what you are missing the PERCEPTION HASN'T CHANGED. the perception has changed amongst rice faithful. amongst rice oriented people, but to the general public we are still that 1980's team that got handled every year. THAT is our perception.

(03-20-2015 08:19 AM)nightowl24 Wrote:  that is what you are missing the PERCEPTION HASN'T CHANGED. the perception has changed amongst rice faithful. amongst rice oriented people, but to the general public we are still that 1980's team that got handled every year. THAT is our perception.

+1000....and that will continue to be the case until we start notching some signature wins. That's the reality.

(03-20-2015 08:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:19 AM)nightowl24 Wrote:  that is what you are missing the PERCEPTION HASN'T CHANGED. the perception has changed amongst rice faithful. amongst rice oriented people, but to the general public we are still that 1980's team that got handled every year. THAT is our perception.

+1000....and that will continue to be the case until we start notching some signature wins on a regular basis. That's the reality.

I added the bolded part, because until those "signature" wins become expected instead of upsets, we will not change the perception much. The only way to do that is to do it more than once in a while.

Also, in addition to signature wins, we need a string of winning seasons and a string of bowl wins. The perception will have changed when Vegas bettors see us as favorites in games against top half teams on a regular basis.

(03-20-2015 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:19 AM)nightowl24 Wrote:  that is what you are missing the PERCEPTION HASN'T CHANGED. the perception has changed amongst rice faithful. amongst rice oriented people, but to the general public we are still that 1980's team that got handled every year. THAT is our perception.

+1000....and that will continue to be the case until we start notching some signature wins on a regular basis. That's the reality.

I added the bolded part, because until those "signature" wins become expected instead of upsets, we will not change the perception much. The only way to do that is to do it more than once in a while.

Also, in addition to signature wins, we need a string of winning seasons and a string of bowl wins. The perception will have changed when Vegas bettors see us as favorites in games against top half teams on a regular basis.

Not true. We don't need to do it on a regular basis, but after notching our first signature win we have to back it up by at least playing competitively (vs. being blown out) in subsequent games against prominent programs. That first signature win is what garners national attention.

And can we please stop with the mutually exclusive stuff. If we're good enough to get one or more signature wins, we will necessarily have winning seasons and get a bowl invite.

(03-20-2015 08:42 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2015 08:19 AM)nightowl24 Wrote:  that is what you are missing the PERCEPTION HASN'T CHANGED. the perception has changed amongst rice faithful. amongst rice oriented people, but to the general public we are still that 1980's team that got handled every year. THAT is our perception.

+1000....and that will continue to be the case until we start notching some signature wins on a regular basis. That's the reality.

I added the bolded part, because until those "signature" wins become expected instead of upsets, we will not change the perception much. The only way to do that is to do it more than once in a while.

Also, in addition to signature wins, we need a string of winning seasons and a string of bowl wins. The perception will have changed when Vegas bettors see us as favorites in games against top half teams on a regular basis.

Not true. We don't need to do it on a regular basis, but after notching our first signature win we have to back it up by at least playing competitively (vs. being blown out) in subsequent games against prominent programs. That first signature win is what garners national attention.

And can we please stop with the mutually exclusive stuff. If we're good enough to get one or more signature wins, we will necessarily have winning seasons and get a bowl invite.

worked for Appy State.

I just think it will take more than one victory every now and then to change the perception. If it is seen as a big upset, how does that change the perception? Scrappy little guy got lucky. Still a little guy.

Say we beat Texas(or Baylor) next year - who will think that we are all of a sudden a top program, please come join our conference? Nobody. it needs to be backed up with further performances. Appy didn't. We will have to.

And I don't see where you come up with the "mutually exclusive" stuff. where did I say that? I think when we get good enough for winning seasons and bowl games, we will get good enough to upset some top dogs. Just saying we need the whole package, not just a part of it, and that it needs to be sustained. Signature wins are part of the treatment, not the miracle drug in and of itself.

I am not sure what our point(s) of difference(s) are.

yep - see TCU. Started dominating their conferences, then got signature wins and rankings in the top ten, then wound up in the Big XII. Its a process, and I think we are in the Queue. We need to keep the momentum.

(03-20-2015 09:45 AM)davidw Wrote:  yep - see TCU. Started dominating their conferences, then got signature wins and rankings in the top ten, then wound up in the Big XII. Its a process, and I think we are in the Queue. We need to keep the momentum.

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have a list of TCU's signature wins prior to being invited into the Big 12OrSo?

I remember the USC one, long ago, and I remember a win against BYU, maybe that counts. What were the others?

(03-20-2015 09:45 AM)davidw Wrote:  yep - see TCU. Started dominating their conferences, then got signature wins and rankings in the top ten, then wound up in the Big XII. Its a process, and I think we are in the Queue. We need to keep the momentum.

Agreed.

And right now, probably the most important thing to do is get basketball turned around.

If we 1) become Boise in football, 2) become Gonzaga in basketball, 3) remain Rice in baseball, and 4) remain in Houston, then there will come another shuffle and we will be a lock to move up when it does. 4 is obviously a done deal. 3 probably depends on choosing Wayne's successor when that time comes, and that will be a hugely critical decision. Right now we are closer to 1 than to 2, although Rhodes could change that. I personally think that Bailiff's ceiling is lower than 1, but if he can be Koetter to his successors' Hawkins and Petersen, we will eventually be good there. We need to get to where football averages 35-40,000, basketball justifies that Tudor be enlarged (if possible) or replaced with something bigger, and revenues increase $12-15 million across the board. Then we look like a P5 candidate.

If we don't, best case is that we will have our choice of CUSA, Sunbelt, or Southland.