(11-05-2015 05:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

You understand that the EZF isn't going to bring in NFL caliber prospects magically right? WG losing recruits to the majors is because our baseball recruiting level is very very high, not because Reckling somehow is alluring. I am not sure what this point is supposed to convey, because while football is trying to strap firecrackers to their back, baseball is already on the moon; totally different scenarios.

Sure facilities will help, no one is arguing that. But will it help enough to make us better than a bottom 50% team, unlikely.

(11-05-2015 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

And not to be overly pessimistic, but we shall see how Temple and Memphis do next year. So far this is one data point which will need to be somewhat maintained for it to matter. Duke has at least shown stability under Cutcliffe.

Wasn't Memphis also pretty good last season? Two data points for them.

(11-05-2015 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I am not sure what this point is supposed to convey, because while football is trying to strap firecrackers to their back, baseball is already on the moon; totally different scenarios.

That comment was almost as good/funny as your score update: "42 to Bailiff"!

(11-05-2015 05:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

I'm trying here, but thanks for pointing that out. What I'm trying to ask is while I am grateful for the EZF, and am glad to see it built, how ill the EZF address our defensive schemes and weaknesses? How will it address the things Owl69 points out about our special teams? How will it help DJ or the next QB? How will it prevent us from getting blown out by LA Tech or WKU at home?

the obviuos answer is: it will help our coach recruit better players who look at our current facilities 9if they are shown at all) as subpar, and I agree. But it has been pointed out inn various threads by the more 'football-knowledgeable" posters that there are deep problems appearing for the past nine seasons despite changes to players, assistants, schedule that appear to contribute to our current standing. I want the EZF, but I don't see how the EZF will specifically help THIS coach get much better than he has been over the past nine seasons. I am asking if I am wrong about that, and the EZF will in fact make him a significantly better coach for us here at Rice?

(11-05-2015 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

You understand that the EZF isn't going to bring in NFL caliber prospects magically right? WG losing recruits to the majors is because our baseball recruiting level is very very high, not because Reckling somehow is alluring. I am not sure what this point is supposed to convey, because while football is trying to strap firecrackers to their back, baseball is already on the moon; totally different scenarios.

Sure facilities will help, no one is arguing that. But will it help enough to make us better than a bottom 50% team, unlikely.

Are 18 hours of required course credits enough to earn a degree? No, but they are needed. One semester of work does not guarantee anything, but it's still a necessary accomplishment and has merit, and it's a step in the right direction. The EZF serves the purpose of improving recruiting, etc., so it's part of the solution. You may not agree that it's a necessary element of program success, but that's a difference of opinion that does not warrant suggesting that those who disagree with you are placing too much hope in it. Their hope lies in the fact that after years of institutional neglect, something big that they believe is necessary is finally getting done.

(11-05-2015 06:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

I'm trying here, but thanks for pointing that out. What I'm trying to ask is while I am grateful for the EZF, and am glad to see it built, how ill the EZF address our defensive schemes and weaknesses? How will it address the things Owl69 points out about our special teams? How will it help DJ or the next QB? How will it prevent us from getting blown out by LA Tech or WKU at home?

the obviuos answer is: it will help our coach recruit better players who look at our current facilities 9if they are shown at all) as subpar, and I agree. But it has been pointed out inn various threads by the more 'football-knowledgeable" posters that there are deep problems appearing for the past nine seasons despite changes to players, assistants, schedule that appear to contribute to our current standing. I want the EZF, but I don't see how the EZF will specifically help THIS coach get much better than he has been over the past nine seasons. I am asking if I am wrong about that, and the EZF will in fact make him a significantly better coach for us here at Rice?

If it helps his recruiting it helps him, to the extent that he can make use of good recruits. It is both true that better facilities will help recruiting, and also true that better recruiting may not lead to better results on the field. There is no dichotomy there.

(11-05-2015 05:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Well...okay, I can agree that the EZF will help address some oft-cited and long standing deficiencies. And I look forward to seeing it, and am grateful to Patterson and JK and the BOT for pushing it forward and making it happen. certainly it will benefit the players, and at least help us step up toward par with other schools.

But my question to ya'll here is:

Can you specify what, specifically, the EZF will do for our coach, and our record a) as it is being built (which everyone can now see this year, and THAT is a very good thing) and b) once it is open? And will the EZF itself help us get a signature win or even two or three of them, since we have not been able to get one for a long time without it? IOW, is this the one difference that will change things dramatically, or should we not even expect that from the EZF existing and/or opening?

It will help recruiting in the sense that if we get commitments from and additional 2 to 5 of our primary target recruits per year that in the past we would not have received, then that is a good thing. (i.e. recruits not 'turned off' by our dated facilities).

Some of all of those primary targets may pan out. Some probably won't. It's just part of the equation. But we're certainly better off getting more of the recruit's our coaches are targeting than fewer.

Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

And more importantly, the key is the aggregate, not looking at individuals within the aggregate.

I understand and agree with that idea, Rick. My concern is not being confident that we can get maximum utility out of those 2 to 5 better players once they are here the way these coaches appear to be handling things.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if these coaches just told the players: "ya'll go play" stepped back, and let them figure it out for a game if we'd be doing that much better or worse than what we've seen? Let DJ call his plays if he's really the 4th or 5th best QB ever to play at Rice as someone recently posted. Again, I'm not a football-insider guy, so I wouldn't know, but I do wonder that, as going back to Chase-Thor-Dillard it seemed we had players who could get it done themselves. If our recruiting is really better than back then, then wouldn't we right now have those same type of players, only even better than Chase-Dillard-Thor were? Then why not "turn them loose" once in a while to see what they could do on their own?

(11-05-2015 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

You understand that the EZF isn't going to bring in NFL caliber prospects magically right?

Nowhere did I say or imply it would. I was clear that some of the people it will bring in who we would otherwise have lost may not pan out. It's the aggregate effect over time.

I was merely trying to answer GoodOwl's question as to how it will help.

It's an incremental improvement, but big improvements are made up of incremental ones.

Wayne's regional teams might have been helped by one additional draftee a year.

Our Top 70 team (2014) or Top 90 team (2015) might have been helped by getting one or two guys we lost in prior years due to facilities.

Fair? If not, call the AD and tell him we're wasting money. I just wouldn't agree.

I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?

(11-05-2015 06:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

I'm trying here, but thanks for pointing that out. What I'm trying to ask is while I am grateful for the EZF, and am glad to see it built, how ill the EZF address our defensive schemes and weaknesses? How will it address the things Owl69 points out about our special teams? How will it help DJ or the next QB? How will it prevent us from getting blown out by LA Tech or WKU at home?

the obviuos answer is: it will help our coach recruit better players who look at our current facilities 9if they are shown at all) as subpar, and I agree. But it has been pointed out inn various threads by the more 'football-knowledgeable" posters that there are deep problems appearing for the past nine seasons despite changes to players, assistants, schedule that appear to contribute to our current standing. I want the EZF, but I don't see how the EZF will specifically help THIS coach get much better than he has been over the past nine seasons. I am asking if I am wrong about that, and the EZF will in fact make him a significantly better coach for us here at Rice?

If it helps his recruiting it helps him, to the extent that he can make use of good recruits. It is both true that better facilities will help recruiting, and also true that better recruiting may not lead to better results on the field. There is no dichotomy there.

OK. I can agree that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy on the EZF. So then, if we hear Coach Bailiff say something like: 'Wait 'til I have the EZF around opened for several years before judging my performance' (my quotes, not his) or something to that effect, how much stock should we put in that? Wouldn't it follow that any other coach would also do better with the EZF than he would have without, thus negating any specific preference for Coach bailiff just based on having the EZF vs not? (Again, I personally am glad we're getting the EZF and am excited watching it get built.)

(11-05-2015 06:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?

We can NOT be better off if we allow Bailiff to sit around till 2020 to allow him time with the EZF. By then, we may be in the Sunbelt for good.

I do not object to the EZF; I am glad it is being built. I object to the EZF being used or even considered as a reason to keep Bailiff around, because the EZF won't help make Rice a top program with Bailiff at the helm. 9 years has shown that our problem is preparation and execution and not a giant lack of talent.

Rice is in a talent rich area, but there are also many schools in the area and out-of-state schools taking recruits out. If we can move up the recruiting preferences, we would do better.

(11-05-2015 06:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:55 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:43 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

You understand that the EZF isn't going to bring in NFL caliber prospects magically right?

Nowhere did I say or imply it would. I was clear that some of the people it will bring in who we would otherwise have lost may not pan out. It's the aggregate effect over time.

I was merely trying to answer GoodOwl's question as to how it will help.

It's an incremental improvement, but big improvements are made up of incremental ones.

Wayne's regional teams might have been helped by one additional draftee a year.

Our Top 70 team (2014) or Top 90 team (2015) might have been helped by getting one or two guys we lost in prior years due to facilities.

Fair? If not, call the AD and tell him we're wasting money. I just wouldn't agree.

I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?

Rick, I'm wondering if the EZF as it relates to Coach Bailiff will more or less help him hold serve (and certainly be a better, more pleasant experience for the players, which is a very good thing to me), but might not help him really move the needle or bar, mountain or whatever other object we can come up with for him to move? I can see how the EZF will help Rice football overall, but I'm not sure how the EZF will specifically help improve Coach Bailiff all that much and take care of many of the recurring problems posted on threads over the last years and this season by posters like Owl69, Ham etc...

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

I'm trying here, but thanks for pointing that out. What I'm trying to ask is while I am grateful for the EZF, and am glad to see it built, how ill the EZF address our defensive schemes and weaknesses? How will it address the things Owl69 points out about our special teams? How will it help DJ or the next QB? How will it prevent us from getting blown out by LA Tech or WKU at home?

the obviuos answer is: it will help our coach recruit better players who look at our current facilities 9if they are shown at all) as subpar, and I agree. But it has been pointed out inn various threads by the more 'football-knowledgeable" posters that there are deep problems appearing for the past nine seasons despite changes to players, assistants, schedule that appear to contribute to our current standing. I want the EZF, but I don't see how the EZF will specifically help THIS coach get much better than he has been over the past nine seasons. I am asking if I am wrong about that, and the EZF will in fact make him a significantly better coach for us here at Rice?

If it helps his recruiting it helps him, to the extent that he can make use of good recruits. It is both true that better facilities will help recruiting, and also true that better recruiting may not lead to better results on the field. There is no dichotomy there.

OK. I can agree that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy on the EZF. So then, if we hear Coach Bailiff say something like: 'Wait 'til I have the EZF around opened for several years before judging my performance' (my quotes, not his) or something to that effect, how much stock should we put in that? Wouldn't it follow that any other coach would also do better with the EZF than he would have without, thus negating any specific preference for Coach bailiff just based on having the EZF vs not? (Again, I personally am glad we're getting the EZF and am excited watching it get built.)

The EZF (or any facilities improvement or recruiting advantage) will not make Bailiff (or any coach) a better coach. Those who are arguing that are conflating improved performance and better results. Eyeglasses help me see better, they don't heal my nearsightedness.

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?

We can NOT be better off if we allow Bailiff to sit around till 2020 to allow him time with the EZF. By then, we may be in the Sunbelt for good.

I do not object to the EZF; I am glad it is being built. I object to the EZF being used or even considered as a reason to keep Bailiff around, because the EZF won't help make Rice a top program with Bailiff at the helm. 9 years has shown that our problem is preparation and execution and not a giant lack of talent.

We would be better off in the sense we would have facilities that ANY head football coach could better show off to his potential recruits, which would make ANY head football coach better by that argument than he would have been without them. But specifically to helping Coach Bailiff more than it would any other potential head football coach? That's where I agree that Antarius is likely more in the right as to his thinking on this.

What I don't want to hear is Coach Bailiff or anyone using the EZF as a wait and see excuse, simply because he will be starting season 10 next year. If we couldn't wait for WTW (men's basketball), and he was a Rice alum, after all, then why should we wait for Bailiff as far as just the EZF is concerned? (I suppose it might be pointed out WTW was here 18 seasons, and Bailiff only 9, so we'd have to wait until season 18 to consider finding another coach?)

(11-05-2015 06:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The EZF (or any facilities improvement or recruiting advantage) will not make Bailiff (or any coach) a better coach. Those who are arguing that are conflating improved performance and better results. Eyeglasses help me see better, they don't heal my nearsightedness.

Exactly. Thank you, Frizzy. That was the point I was after. I am glad at least one other poster on here is unafraid to admit it.

All I'd ask is for the Board to keep Frizzy's point in mind in the offseason. Thank you again, brave Frizzy.

(11-05-2015 05:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

And not to be overly pessimistic, but we shall see how Temple and Memphis do next year. So far this is one data point which will need to be somewhat maintained for it to matter. Duke has at least shown stability under Cutcliffe.

Wasn't Memphis also pretty good last season? Two data points for them.

I must have been confusing them with someone else last year - I did not realize they went 10-3.

They're having the turn around we were hoping for in 2009...

(11-05-2015 06:28 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:13 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 05:27 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

I'm trying here, but thanks for pointing that out. What I'm trying to ask is while I am grateful for the EZF, and am glad to see it built, how ill the EZF address our defensive schemes and weaknesses? How will it address the things Owl69 points out about our special teams? How will it help DJ or the next QB? How will it prevent us from getting blown out by LA Tech or WKU at home?

the obviuos answer is: it will help our coach recruit better players who look at our current facilities 9if they are shown at all) as subpar, and I agree. But it has been pointed out inn various threads by the more 'football-knowledgeable" posters that there are deep problems appearing for the past nine seasons despite changes to players, assistants, schedule that appear to contribute to our current standing. I want the EZF, but I don't see how the EZF will specifically help THIS coach get much better than he has been over the past nine seasons. I am asking if I am wrong about that, and the EZF will in fact make him a significantly better coach for us here at Rice?

If it helps his recruiting it helps him, to the extent that he can make use of good recruits. It is both true that better facilities will help recruiting, and also true that better recruiting may not lead to better results on the field. There is no dichotomy there.

OK. I can agree that there doesn't have to be a dichotomy on the EZF. So then, if we hear Coach Bailiff say something like: 'Wait 'til I have the EZF around opened for several years before judging my performance' (my quotes, not his) or something to that effect, how much stock should we put in that? Wouldn't it follow that any other coach would also do better with the EZF than he would have without, thus negating any specific preference for Coach bailiff just based on having the EZF vs not? (Again, I personally am glad we're getting the EZF and am excited watching it get built.)

The EZF (or any facilities improvement or recruiting advantage) will not make Bailiff (or any coach) a better coach. Those who are arguing that are conflating improved performance and better results. Eyeglasses help me see better, they don't heal my nearsightedness.

Just to be clear, even though I am a Bailiff supporter, I do not think that the EZF will make David a better coach...or couch for that matter. What I think that the EZF addresses is the perception that Rice University is not committed to succeed in athletics. Some kids commit to schools, some commit to coaches. What the EZF does is to partially invalidate the negative recruiting against Rice by other schools thereby attracting the kids who want to commit to the school and not necessarily the coach. Using the analogy of a sharpshooter, Coach Bailiff is trying to hit the target of Top 25 and the Access bowl. The EZF potentially provides David with better bullets. Better bullets may help increase accuracy, but hitting the bull's eye only happens if the rifle (system) and shooter (David) can fully utilize what is given.

(11-05-2015 06:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:21 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?

We can NOT be better off if we allow Bailiff to sit around till 2020 to allow him time with the EZF. By then, we may be in the Sunbelt for good.

I do not object to the EZF; I am glad it is being built. I object to the EZF being used or even considered as a reason to keep Bailiff around, because the EZF won't help make Rice a top program with Bailiff at the helm. 9 years has shown that our problem is preparation and execution and not a giant lack of talent.

That's where I agree that Antarius is likely more in the right as to his thinking on this.

What the heck do you mean by that? Good grief.

Where did I mention any specific Coach in my response to your question in this thread?

You asked a question about the EZF and to what level it would help a coach and how?

What in my response was 'less right' than anything else posted in this thread?

What was 'wrong' in what I posted?

Is the point that every post you and Antarius put out has to be about why you believe there is absolutely no reason we should keep Bailiff as coach one more second?

All I can gather was that the purpose of your question wasn't to get an answer to the question, but to get to a specific assessment of how it pertains to Bailiff.

Again, look at my response, which was only directed to the question, and did not address Bailiff. How is what I posted 'less right' or 'more wrong'?

But since this goes back to your agenda, I disagree with your assessment, because I disagree with the theory that Bailiff has never changed or that we make the same mistakes every game, or any of the other absolutes you're basing your statement on.

I believe we beat the teams that we're better than. I believe that the subset of teams that we're better than changes from year to year (just like it did for Hatfield, Neely and any other coach we have for more than a smattering of games.), based on which players are on our roster, their growth/improvement and their experience, and further, that the subset can change game to game, depending on injuries, suspensions, and other factors (yes, that's for both teams, it seldom is 100% equal in either direction).

And given that I think the players play a big role in who wins and loses, I do think anything that improves recruiting can result in real improvement in our team.

Not sure what's 'less right' about any of that.

Rick, with all due respect, your attitude (and others like it) are precisely why Rice is mired in the mess they are. Because mediocre results are justified, leaving minimal scope or justification for improvement.

Yes, the list of teams we are better than changes, but yes, they never crack the top 50. And if that is acceptable, then I fail to understand why you and others balk at the suggestion of division III.

(11-05-2015 07:50 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  Just to be clear, even though I am a Bailiff supporter, I do not think that the EZF will make David a better coach...or couch for that matter.

I agree if we had better couches at HRS the games would be more comfortable to watch!