(11-05-2015 08:01 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(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.

(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. 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.

In my opinion, Pan95 had a better response here, Rick. I'll retract "more right" as I wasn't saying you were wrong as much as saying I happen to disagree with what you posted.

The purpose of my question, which I posted above in reply to Frozzy's answer was my concern that an excuse that is being prepared for the offseason and the next few is to use the EZF as a delay in being allowed to assess Bailiff's performance because somehow the EZF was going to dramatically change it. I agree with Pan95 here that we'll likely be able to get a few "better bullets" with the EZF. I remain unconvinced that the rifle will change much (system) and the shooter will be able to utilize those better bullets to their maximum effect. So to me, it is still very much a question, based on what I've observed over the last nine years of data points, if the EZF will help Bailiff more than it might help another coach we may now be able to attract because of the upgraded facilities that help get us closer to par in that area.

As to my "agenda" I have only this: for Rice to be P5 again as soon as possible, and for Rice to be competitive with middle to upper P5 programs, winning 50% of the time we play middling to upper-level P5 programs (the bottom dwelling P5's don;t impress me much, as they don't impress the average college football fan where I'm from (SEC territory).

If you disagree with that agenda, I can accept that. I can't understand that, and probably never will, but I can accept that you might not want that for Rice for whatever reason. Please respect my and other posters here desires to want more for Rice the school and brand than being loyal to one coach who has difficult to resolve results that appear to me at least to require constant qualifications over the greater part of a decade.

I'm waiting for a coach to provide inarguable achievements recognized by all college football fans nationally. I believe there is no real reason to expect less. I take great interest to the diversion of the Memphis level of success and the Rice level of success since we played that fateful football game some years ago. I realize they were worse than us at that point in football.

We had it happen in baseball when Wayne went to and then won CWS. I believe it likely (though not guaranteed) we'll get to the NCAAs soon with Rhoades (how long he'll stay is another matter, though I'd like the Rice admin to make real efforts to be sure mere salary was not the reason he leaves). I don't see why we should not to want that kind of unqualified success in football, but I understand most of the Parliament does not seem to agree.

(11-05-2015 08:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 08:01 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(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.

(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. 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.

In my opinion, Pan95 had a better response here, Rick. I'll retract "more right" as I wasn't saying you were wrong as much as saying I happen to disagree with what you posted.

All I posted was that the EZF would help recruiting and that in the aggregate that would help our record. Coaching independent.

Not sure what there was to disagree with there.

Any coach with better players will have a better record than he would have without better players.

didn't bring up Bailiff

Not sure what there is to disagree with there.

You're worried in advance about 'excuses being prepared'?

You're determining whether or not I want to be in a P5 conference, if somehow that opportunity was going to be afforded us?

Sigh.

(11-05-2015 08:40 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 08:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 08:01 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 06:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

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

(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. 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.

In my opinion, Pan95 had a better response here, Rick. I'll retract "more right" as I wasn't saying you were wrong as much as saying I happen to disagree with what you posted.

All I posted was that the EZF would help recruiting and that in the aggregate that would help our record. Coaching independent.

Not sure what there was to disagree with there.

Any coach with better players will have a better record than he would have without better players.

didn't bring up Bailiff

Not sure what there is to disagree with there.

You're worried in advance about 'excuses being prepared'?

You're determining whether or not I want to be in a P5 conference, if somehow that opportunity was going to be afforded us?

Sigh.

Sigh, too, Rick. Yes, I do see the excuses already underway in pressers and now looking through posts. It's quite unreal. But it is what it is. Okay. Tomato, tomahto. I'll move on. Time to listen to some tunes.

(11-05-2015 08:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  If you disagree with that agenda, I can accept that. I can't understand that, and probably never will, but I can accept that you might not want that for Rice for whatever reason. Please respect my and other posters here desires to want more for Rice the school and brand than being loyal to one coach who has difficult to resolve results that appear to me at least to require constant qualifications over the greater part of a decade.

That's genius-level trolling right there. I suppose you deserve rep points for this kind of expertise but I don't think I should encourage it.

(11-05-2015 08:07 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

It is unfortunate, but we would likely be at or near the bottom of any list of coach openings. What about our program is attractive to outside candidates as opposed to others? The only program I can think of that has been mentioned is Hawaii because of recruiting, but even Hawaii means you get to live there. Maybe Toledo? But that's only because I don't know a damn thing about their program.

Each one of the three high schools (all some of the biggest high schools in Texas in terms of enrollment) in my town all had indoor practice facilities with a 75 yard length field (full regulation width). The one at my school housed the weight room as well. Great multipurpose facility as every team at the school has access to and used that facility.

What is Plano, Texas?

Let's go with sports-crazed towns again for $400, Alex.

(11-06-2015 02:09 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 08:07 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

It is unfortunate, but we would likely be at or near the bottom of any list of coach openings. What about our program is attractive to outside candidates as opposed to others? The only program I can think of that has been mentioned is Hawaii because of recruiting, but even Hawaii means you get to live there. Maybe Toledo? But that's only because I don't know a damn thing about their program.

Each one of the three high schools (all some of the biggest high schools in Texas in terms of enrollment) in my town all had indoor practice facilities with a 75 yard length field (full regulation width). The one at my school housed the weight room as well. Great multipurpose facility as every team at the school has access to and used that facility.

What is Plano, Texas?

Let's go with sports-crazed towns again for $400, Alex.

Haha, too easy. Not too hard to guess which one I went to, given my username.

(11-06-2015 02:55 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-06-2015 02:09 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 08:07 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

It is unfortunate, but we would likely be at or near the bottom of any list of coach openings. What about our program is attractive to outside candidates as opposed to others? The only program I can think of that has been mentioned is Hawaii because of recruiting, but even Hawaii means you get to live there. Maybe Toledo? But that's only because I don't know a damn thing about their program.

Each one of the three high schools (all some of the biggest high schools in Texas in terms of enrollment) in my town all had indoor practice facilities with a 75 yard length field (full regulation width). The one at my school housed the weight room as well. Great multipurpose facility as every team at the school has access to and used that facility.

What is Plano, Texas?

Let's go with sports-crazed towns again for $400, Alex.

Haha, too easy. Not too hard to guess which one I went to, given my username.

Ironically, i lived in PISD for many years as an adult, but did not realize that was your mascot and school name...

I couldn't use my high school mascot on here as a screen name because y'all would Tier me One. We did play in the same district with the school that inspired Friday Night Lights.