I try to be an OptimisticOwl™ but I think change might be coming after this season. The team I watched on Saturday may not be capable of winning more than 6 games and I think that would be unacceptable. WKU wasn't that good, there were plenty of dropped passes, poor execution, and 3rd and longs on their part as well, but it seemed like when they needed to, they could always take what they wanted from our defense. This team shows flashes of some spectacular offensive potential, even in the UT and Baylor games, but most of the time has been plagued with poor execution this season. Poor execution that is not caused by the opposing team. At this point, I'm not sure any game left on our schedule is a sure win.
I feel for our seniors, especially Dennis Parks, because they deserve better than this, but if changes come at the end of the season, then maybe we'll be at the beginning of something better.
We have to make internal changes. That is fundamentally necessary, totally agreed. However, we have to make those changes with an aggressive eye to getting out of CUSA as soon as possible. Institutionally, it is a horrible fit for us.
What is really alarming is that we have perhaps the worst possible coach to have when a decline in conference affiliation has taken place. Bailiff's teams invariably play to expectations and regress to the mean. What that means is that wherever we fall to, Bailiff will soon have us treading water there.
Look at what has happened in just these last three years: We've gone from winning a severely diminished CUSA (which we should have been doing at the very minimum) to being a whipping boy in our own backyard. What's next for us, the Sun Belt? Maybe we can win that one by default too in our first year there and then backslide into total oblivion.
(10-05-2015 12:10 PM)Wiessman Wrote: We have to make internal changes. That is fundamentally necessary, totally agreed. However, we have to make those changes with an aggressive eye to getting out of CUSA as soon as possible. Institutionally, it is a horrible fit for us.
Agree with this, as well as the fact that we (finally) appear to have an athletic administration that is a) capable of and b) eager to structurally fix or at least substantially improve the department.
I will say this to Frizzy Owl's point ... simply changing conferences in, for example, the Greenspan era/nightmare, would have likely proven out his argument as correct.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:17 PM by Orange County Owl.)
(10-05-2015 12:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Tulane wouldn't win the Sunbelt, or C-USA. Doesn't matter where they are.
True, but Tulane doesn't have to suffer the compounded indignity of playing a bunch of schools that it has zero academic commonality with.
At this point, from a sports standing perspective, I'd rather be Tulane. You know they were invited to the AAC just to get a fraction of the LA market and to give the middle finger to us.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:20 PM by Wiessman.)
(10-05-2015 12:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Why can't we develop a mentality of being an asset to a conference, instead of believing we need a conference to be an asset to us?
Giving vs taking.
As a whole, we have a loser mentality, which is self-fulfilling prophecy.
Speak for yourself, por favor. I don't have a loser mentality, and that is why I believe wholeheartedly that we can and should do much better. I believe that Rice brings a tremendous amount to the table for any ambitious conference, and that value would skyrocket with sports excellence (or even consistency).
But man, no matter how you slice it, the schools in CUSA will never be within light years of us academically. That is practically a fact. You don't just play sports in college to play sports; you do it to develop real rivalries and institutional camaraderie. I'm not feelin' it with our current CUSA mates, and I NEVER WILL.
If we're not going to try to move to a place where we really belong in D1, then I'm all for forfeiting our status and dropping down. Playing Chicago at a modified HRS on Saturday afternoons in the future is just fine by me.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:28 PM by Wiessman.)
(10-05-2015 12:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Tulane wouldn't win the Sunbelt, or C-USA. Doesn't matter where they are.
True, but Tulane doesn't have to suffer the compounded indignity of playing a bunch of schools that it has zero academic commonality with.
At this point, from a sports standing perspective, I'd rather be Tulane. You know they were invited to the AAC just to get a fraction of the LA market and to give the middle finger to us.
But on the field, they're losers - and you said it, not me - you'd rather be them.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:26 PM by Frizzy Owl.)
(10-05-2015 12:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Why can't we develop a mentality of being an asset to a conference, instead of believing we need a conference to be an asset to us?
Giving vs taking.
As a whole, we have a loser mentality, which is self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think it should be both. Our goal can be to be the best no matter where we are while simultaneously trying to improve where we are.
The loser mentality is that we all expected to lose to WKU and that some seem to be ok with that (not directed at you)
(10-05-2015 12:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Tulane wouldn't win the Sunbelt, or C-USA. Doesn't matter where they are.
True, but Tulane doesn't have to suffer the compounded indignity of playing a bunch of schools that it has zero academic commonality with.
At this point, from a sports standing perspective, I'd rather be Tulane. You know they were invited to the AAC just to get a fraction of the LA market and to give the middle finger to us.
But on the field, they're losers - and you said it, not me - you'd rather be them.
(10-05-2015 12:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: But on the field, they're losers - and you said it, not me - you'd rather be them.
Keeping Bailiff employed ostensibly means that we are fine being losers too. At least Tulane has conference affiliation upside.
And I said that I'd rather be them only in terms of their standing. So shove it. Some of you just can't admit when you're wrong, and so you resort to petty retorts (which, frankly, aren't even clever anyway).
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:36 PM by Wiessman.)
(10-05-2015 12:02 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: Exactly my point. SMU just went out and invested in a new staff and is clearly further down the track of fixing (or at least attempting to fix) their program. One can argue that we would never invest that much in a head coach - which is a fair point - but that's not the core issue. The issue is that they identified their problem and sought out about fixing it by bringing in Chad Morris, who was a high profile hire. Meanwhile, Bailiff is deemed a "success".
(Of course, they did the same thing with Larry Brown, but never mind that ... )
Tulane appears to be a lost cause regardless. And no one thinks that changing conferences will "magically fix our problems" ... but it will give us a little more ability (and pressure) to fix them ourselves.
I think, up until August of 2015, everyone in the Parliament would agree on at least some levels that Bailiff has been a success at Rice. Bowl games, bowl wins, conference championship, winning seasons, expectations, etc... I don't think you can take that away from him.
However, there is a difference between being successful and being the answer to your long-term goals. This is where I think the "Bailiff supporters" and the the "Bailiff haters" struggle to see each other's point. You can be a supporter of what he has done for the program while also believing Rice can take the next step with someone new. It is OK to say "David Bailiff has made great strides and accomplished what no one else has at Rice BUT he is not the man to get over the mid-major hump" because the bottom line is he has been a success at Rice.
Whether or not he is the coach to take the team to a Top 25 ranking and a few signature wins in the next 5 years is, as they say, "to each their own".
The AAC isn't the solution to our problems. But compared to SunBelt-USA, it has better visibility, better league revenue potential, is probably easier to recruit to (I think our recruiting has degraded since CUSA fell apart, but that's subjective), and has some programs that are slightly or notably more attractive to fans-- all of which make it easier to fix our problems.
(10-05-2015 10:38 AM)Afflicted Wrote: Then you'll get your way and Bailiff's contract won't be renewed after 2018. The ship will continue to take on water until it sinks. He'll be gone, you'll feel vindicated, and you'll get to tell everyone "I told you so."
That's not the goal. Not mine anyway, and I doubt it's Ant's or anyone else's either.
The goal, to be clear, is for Rice to be in the Top25 soon and to beat Top teams like Texas (okay, but they used to be, and will be again one way or another) and Baylor and A&M, etc.. about half the time we play them and clean up in this G5 conference until we can somehow punch our way out. To reasonably fill our stadium with both Rice and non-Rice football fans by providing a viable, pleasant, motivating, entertaining afternoon or evening of Div. I football, including exciting quality play on the field win, lose or draw.
I think we'll have that kind of thing going on in the next few years in Basketball. Baseball has had it for a while, though recently at a slightly reduced level. Football is the doughnut hole and we've got to find a way to fill it, soon.
This is the part that absolutely isn't happening. I don't care what they're ranked, or what we're ranked, or what Sagarin thinks we may be ranked, or what the betting line is, or what the country thinks of our program (hint: they don't). What matters is that we went out there and looked absolutely awful and had no pride, no motivation, and no spark. It's easy to complain about students attendance at the games, but why would a non sports inclined Rice student ever want to go to a home game when we play like this? It's a waste of a Saturday afternoon. The games are dreadfully boring and we're getting destroyed. Maybe a few more would come if the players weren't so embarrassed by our performance they don't even stay for the alma mater after the game.
My problem with Bailiff is that it simply doesn't feel like he's doing anything to change this culture. Every week is the same mediocre game management, same mediocre plays, same mediocre schemes, and same result. I don't feel any spark or excitement. When I think or rice football, I mostly just think of "gray" as that is was we are: dull and devoid of intrigue. I don't really care how we do next week, I just pray we do something different.
How many times during these 9 years has Bailiff changed assistants when his seat is perceived to be a little warm? For some reason, it just seems as when there are rumblings with his or the team's performance, there is an assistant change.
Also, these are the games we need to be competitive in to keep moving this program forward. We shouldn't be getting blown out by teams like Western Kentucky. We need to be competitive with teams that are top 50 or even top 75. We could still become bowl eligible by beating teams that are ranked in the 100s by Sagarin. The question we should be asking ourselves, both as a fan base and a program, is if this is enough. If it is, then we should stay the course. If we want more, then a change at the top has to be made. My fear is that IF we make it to a bowl, our fan base is so apathetic based on how we got there that we don't really support the team. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't sense everybody getting excited to make the effort around the holidays to turn out for a bowl game in New Mexico or St. Pete. That could have longer lasting effects on the program's viability and/or attractiveness to bowls in the future than a losing season would.
(10-05-2015 12:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Why can't we develop a mentality of being an asset to a conference, instead of believing we need a conference to be an asset to us?
Giving vs taking.
As a whole, we have a loser mentality, which is self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think it should be both. Our goal can be to be the best no matter where we are while simultaneously trying to improve where we are.
The loser mentality is that we all expected to lose to WKU and that some seem to be ok with that (not directed at you)
If you can humor me, which teams is it OK to be expected to lose to? Is there a strict ranking cut off? Or does it have more to do with P-5/G-5 affiliation? What about historical success? Is being OK with losing the same thing as expecting to lose?
I think I understand the idea behind what you're trying to say, but I'm not 100% sure. To me there are definitely teams that we should be OK losing to based on a rationale evaluation of where our program is, or heck, COULD be after 9 years with one coach (based on where we started. )But how are you determining which program that is?
(10-05-2015 12:02 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote: Exactly my point. SMU just went out and invested in a new staff and is clearly further down the track of fixing (or at least attempting to fix) their program. One can argue that we would never invest that much in a head coach - which is a fair point - but that's not the core issue. The issue is that they identified their problem and sought out about fixing it by bringing in Chad Morris, who was a high profile hire. Meanwhile, Bailiff is deemed a "success".
(Of course, they did the same thing with Larry Brown, but never mind that ... )
Tulane appears to be a lost cause regardless. And no one thinks that changing conferences will "magically fix our problems" ... but it will give us a little more ability (and pressure) to fix them ourselves.
I think, up until August of 2015, everyone in the Parliament would agree on at least some levels that Bailiff has been a success at Rice. Bowl games, bowl wins, conference championship, winning seasons, expectations, etc... I don't think you can take that away from him.
However, there is a difference between being successful and being the answer to your long-term goals. This is where I think the "Bailiff supporters" and the the "Bailiff haters" struggle to see each other's point. You can be a supporter of what he has done for the program while also believing Rice can take the next step with someone new. It is OK to say "David Bailiff has made great strides and accomplished what no one else has at Rice BUT he is not the man to get over the mid-major hump" because the bottom line is he has been a success at Rice.
Whether or not he is the coach to take the team to a Top 25 ranking and a few signature wins in the next 5 years is, as they say, "to each their own".
I pretty much agree with this as someone who's been a Bailiff supporter. I see the WKU game as like the Memphis game a few years ago. Can Bailiff salvage the season against the remaining opposition and not get humiliated by La Tech?
But really, I'm not sure how regularly I goad people on this board. I can think of a few posts over the years, but I'd find it shockingly hard to believe that the majority of my >3,000 posts (I should find a hobby) have been made with the attempt to goad people on this board. But if you can provide me with 1,500+ posts of evidence, I'll agree with you on that.
I just think you don't like me very much for some reason.
(10-05-2015 12:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote: Why can't we develop a mentality of being an asset to a conference, instead of believing we need a conference to be an asset to us?
Giving vs taking.
As a whole, we have a loser mentality, which is self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think it should be both. Our goal can be to be the best no matter where we are while simultaneously trying to improve where we are.
The loser mentality is that we all expected to lose to WKU and that some seem to be ok with that (not directed at you)
If you can humor me, which teams is it OK to be expected to lose to? Is there a strict ranking cut off? Or does it have more to do with P-5/G-5 affiliation? What about historical success? Is being OK with losing the same thing as expecting to lose?
I think I understand the idea behind what you're trying to say, but I'm not 100% sure. To me there are definitely teams that we should be OK losing to based on a rationale evaluation of where our program is, or heck, COULD be after 9 years with one coach (based on where we started. )But how are you determining which program that is?
A team in the top 25? Our goal is to be top 25 and 9 years later, we aren't close. So a reasonable goal would be a top 25 team as an understandable loss.
I drive my expectations on COULD be, not where we are. For example, I expect a coach in year 9 to be able to not lose by 39 at home to a conference mate who isn't ranked in the top 25. I expect Rice, with a coach here for 9 years, to have been able to beat Texas this year, who is atrocious. Did I think we would, absolutely not - and thats based on a rational evaluation of what Bailiff has done.
(This post was last modified: 10-05-2015 12:46 PM by Antarius.)
But really, I'm not sure how regularly I goad people on this board. I can think of a few posts over the years, but I'd find it shockingly hard to believe that the majority of my >3,000 posts (I should find a hobby) have been made with the attempt to goad people on this board. But if you can provide me with 1,500+ posts of evidence, I'll agree with you on that.
I just think you don't like me very much for some reason.
