Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

(11-05-2015 09:36 AM)junrice Wrote:  Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

Nicely stated. In the military, there is a term for people who are just hanging around for retirement, doing little. RIP. Retired in place. DB seems a bit young to be RIP, but it sure seems as though he is.

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:36 AM)junrice Wrote:  Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

Nicely stated. In the military, there is a term for people who are just hanging around for retirement, doing little. RIP. Retired in place. DB seems a bit young to be RIP, but it sure seems as though he is.

I honestly have no idea why people keep spouting off this idea that DB isn't just sitting back and being complacent.

Nothing DB has done to me shows that he is just sitting back and collecting a pay check. I don't see any change in demeanor, coaching style, results, etc. from 2007 to now that make me think, "Hm, DB was really trying back in 20XX, but wow, he is just phoning it in this year and collecting a paycheck."

That does not mean I think he is a good coach or shouldn't be fired. But what makes you think he is "retiring in place," as opposed to just not being a good coach? Those two are completely different.

(11-05-2015 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:36 AM)junrice Wrote:  Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

Nicely stated. In the military, there is a term for people who are just hanging around for retirement, doing little. RIP. Retired in place. DB seems a bit young to be RIP, but it sure seems as though he is.

I honestly have no idea why people keep spouting off this idea that DB is just sitting back and being complacent.

Nothing DB has done to me shows that he is just sitting back and collecting a pay check. I don't see any change in demeanor, coaching style, results, etc. from 2007 to now that make me think, "Hm, DB was really trying back in 20XX, but wow, he is just phoning it in this year and collecting a paycheck."

That does not mean I think he is a good coach or shouldn't be fired. But what makes you think he is "retiring in place," as opposed to just not being a good coach? Those two are completely different.

FIFY

I don't know if you remember it or not, but back sometime in the 2009-11 timeframe there was a lot of argument here that because bailiff had a long term contract he didn't care about winning or even working. There was a lot of talk about putting him on a year-to-year basis or on an incentive plan, $xxxx/win.

Is he working an 80 hour week where a younghungryassistant might be working 110? Probably. Does the extra 30hrs/wk equate to more wins? maybe, maybe not. I think we will have an opportunity to see soon.

No... DB is definitely not retired in place.

The fire doesn't need to come from him, but he needs to allow it. I've seen SOME of it... and it went a little overboard (Ibe)... but it's clearly there.

There are plenty of players and coaches who have been effective without being particularly 'firey'... Tom Landry was perhaps the best of all of those.

(11-05-2015 11:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No... DB is definitely not retired in place.

The fire doesn't need to come from him, but he needs to allow it. I've seen SOME of it... and it went a little overboard (Ibe)... but it's clearly there.

There are plenty of players and coaches who have been effective without being particularly 'firey'... Tom Landry was perhaps the best of all of those.

From all reports, Tom Landry was in players faces during practice. I've heard from several insiders that DB's demeanor in practices is the same as on the sidelines during games.

(11-05-2015 11:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No... DB is definitely not retired in place.

The fire doesn't need to come from him, but he needs to allow it. I've seen SOME of it... and it went a little overboard (Ibe)... but it's clearly there.

There are plenty of players and coaches who have been effective without being particularly 'firey'... Tom Landry was perhaps the best of all of those.

From all reports, Tom Landry was in players faces during practice. I've heard from several insiders that DB's demeanor in practices is the same as on the sidelines during games.

I've seen it personally. I saw him chew out a defensive end (loudly I might add) for making a "selfish" play.

(11-05-2015 11:33 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 11:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No... DB is definitely not retired in place.

The fire doesn't need to come from him, but he needs to allow it. I've seen SOME of it... and it went a little overboard (Ibe)... but it's clearly there.

There are plenty of players and coaches who have been effective without being particularly 'firey'... Tom Landry was perhaps the best of all of those.

From all reports, Tom Landry was in players faces during practice. I've heard from several insiders that DB's demeanor in practices is the same as on the sidelines during games.

My opinion is that there is more than one way to get your players to perform. But if red-faced screaming and clipboard throwing are required of our next coach, I suggest that JK should have each candidate demonstrate his screaming and throwing abilities as part of the screening process.

Another pro coach who comes to mind is Bud Grant. The Great Stone Face, as he was called.

I also remember that early in Landry's career the Cowboy fans wanted him fired, so the owner responded with a ten year contract.

(11-05-2015 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  That does not mean I think he is a good coach or shouldn't be fired. But what makes you think he is "retiring in place," as opposed to just not being a good coach? Those two are completely different.

This.

(11-05-2015 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:36 AM)junrice Wrote:  Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

Nicely stated. In the military, there is a term for people who are just hanging around for retirement, doing little. RIP. Retired in place. DB seems a bit young to be RIP, but it sure seems as though he is.

I honestly have no idea why people keep spouting off this idea that DB isn't just sitting back and being complacent.

Nothing DB has done to me shows that he is just sitting back and collecting a pay check. I don't see any change in demeanor, coaching style, results, etc. from 2007 to now that make me think, "Hm, DB was really trying back in 20XX, but wow, he is just phoning it in this year and collecting a paycheck."

That does not mean I think he is a good coach or shouldn't be fired. But what makes you think he is "retiring in place," as opposed to just not being a good coach? Those two are completely different.

First of all, i am not football expert, but i know what is aggressive call, and i know what king of play should the coach should call, when they are underdog of the game.

I am not expert, then how did i know ? BECAUSE I SAW HOW OTHER COACHS CARE ABOUT WIN MORE DOING THAT.I just cannot feel Baliff is doing that, I could be wrong.


if we are under dog of 10 games, i wish the coach to make aggressive approach, win one of these 10 games, even all other 9 lost ugly. I didn't see that, i am seeing we lost all 10 games in a 'certainly happening' way.

(11-05-2015 11:52 AM)junrice Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 10:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM)Ranger Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:36 AM)junrice Wrote:  Younger head coach is more energetic, and care about their future, their career, Baliff is in half - retiring status.


Fire Baliff, maybe not today, but the sooner, the better. Rice have no time to waste, Rice have no time to wait.

Nicely stated. In the military, there is a term for people who are just hanging around for retirement, doing little. RIP. Retired in place. DB seems a bit young to be RIP, but it sure seems as though he is.

I honestly have no idea why people keep spouting off this idea that DB isn't just sitting back and being complacent.

Nothing DB has done to me shows that he is just sitting back and collecting a pay check. I don't see any change in demeanor, coaching style, results, etc. from 2007 to now that make me think, "Hm, DB was really trying back in 20XX, but wow, he is just phoning it in this year and collecting a paycheck."

That does not mean I think he is a good coach or shouldn't be fired. But what makes you think he is "retiring in place," as opposed to just not being a good coach? Those two are completely different.

First of all, i am not football expert, but i know what is aggressive call, and i know what king of play should the coach should call, when they are underdog of the game.

I am not expert, then how did i know ? BECAUSE I SAW HOW OTHER COACHS CARE ABOUT WIN MORE DOING THAT.I just cannot feel Baliff is doing that, I could be wrong.


if we are under dog of 10 games, i wish the coach to make aggressive approach, win one of these 10 games, even all other 9 lost ugly. I didn't see that, i am seeing we lost all 10 games in a 'certainly happening' way.

I had no problems with your opinion that you want a young, up and coming coach who is energetic and much less conservative when it comes to play calling. I think that would bring a breath of fresh air to the program, a la Rhoades.

But I don't think there is any indication that DB is partially retiring. He still hits the recruiting trail hard and hasn't gone from a fiery coach to a laid back one. There just aren't any indications that he isn't trying with less vigor than he was when he started - and I don't think he was half way to retirement when he started at Rice.

Landry and Grant were intense control freaks who hated losing. Neither of them ever hesitated to put performance over sentiment in playing time or player selection. But they were pro coaches who never had to deal with the different challenges faced by college coaches.

From afar, it is impossible for me to see Bailiff's intensity. I have heard some fans on here state that he appears lost during games, but only those on the sideline with him would really know. His players, of course, defend him vigorously.

What can be seen is the record against teams ranked above and below us. The games we are favored to win against real bottom feeders we do win. Games against higher ranked and comparably ranked teams result in humiliating losses. Do we change personnel when this happens? Do we change our strategy on offense or defense? Do we manage the game well? Are the players properly motivated and prepared? Or, are we just out-athleted to the point that nothing we would do would make a difference? My impression, after 9 years is that in many games, the answer to questions 1 through 4 is no. In other games, the answer to no. 5 is yes. But this is just a fan's perspective who is also an alum who roots for Rice through thick and thin.

I'd like to see more of a game changer at the head coach position. Bailiff, who has many good qualities as a person, seems more like a caretaker. Given the other deficiencies in our program, as outlined by many, it may be hard to get a better coach at a price we can afford. But if we don't, AD JK's goal of getting to the Top 25 loos more like a pipe dream.

Tom Landry never had to coach a millenial.

I am pretty sure that if Bailiff starting benching players for making mistakes, as is wanted here, the complaint here would quickly change to he panics too easily and abandons the game plan too soon.

Also, we would soon be playing the third and fourth string. I am sure they are not going to make mistakes.

I think we will have a change this year, so we will see if the next guy throws temper fits better.

(11-05-2015 12:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am pretty sure that if Bailiff starting benching players for making mistakes, as is wanted here, the complaint here would quickly change to he panics too easily and abandons the game plan too soon.

What plan?

I'm still trying to figure it out, 9 years on...

The problem with benching players is that he didn't do it nine years ago when he first got here, so the culture is now that it is okay to do things that might merit benchings. If he starts benching people now, he raises legitimate issues of why is that a problem now, when it wasn't before.

Look, Bailiff is what he is. He is a Mack Brown-lite. He is good with high school coaches and recruits and hangs out with some boosters and generally is liked around campus. An X's and O's guru he is not. He never has been and never will be.

Like Mack, he relies on his assistants to run the shows--offense, defense and special teams. Where his failures lie (apart from general things he cannot control) is in some of the assistants through the years. Part of that is a Rice issue-we simply don't pay assistants enough. Part of that is a Bailiff issue-whenever he has a chance, he resorts back to hiring old guys, many of whom are way past their prime and are essentially RIP as it was referred to above.

Whenever Bailiff has hired a younger guy, it has generally turned out well. Herman and Miller were well regarded on the 08 staff. Beaty and Reagan were somewhat up and comers. David Sloan and Anthony Steward are well thought of on the current staff. However, with the exception of Thurmond, the old guys have been disasters. Zaunbrecher, Driesbach, now Edmondson. There is a reason these old coaches are floating around. It's because they aren't very good.

As long as we are stuck with Bailiff--and we are stuck with him for another year or two, like or not--we should find some way to rectify this problem. Some of it is paying assistants more (and Bailiff claims this is the main issue--he cannot afford who he would like to hire). But I know for a fact there are some good young coaches out there who have shown some interest in Rice, but Bailiff hasn't been interested.

The fact is, offensive football especially nowadays is a young man's game. Go look at all these offenses in the Big 12 scoring big points--almost all of them are led by young guys. Kingsbury, Briles' kid, Meachem and Cumby, Lincoln Riley at OU. Even the SEC has gone this route--Kiffin at Bama, Jake Spavital at A&M. Or just look down the road at who we used to have and what he is doing over there. We need to hire young whiz kids (like we did with Applewhite and Herman) and give them control of the offense, and watch the (good) results. Then when they move on to "better" jobs, we need to get the next set of whiz kids, instead of feelings getting hurt and us ending up with an old zero like Edmondson.

(11-05-2015 01:49 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Look, Bailiff is what he is. He is a Mack Brown-lite. He is good with high school coaches and recruits and hangs out with some boosters and generally is liked around campus. An X's and O's guru he is not. He never has been and never will be.

Like Mack, he relies on his assistants to run the shows--offense, defense and special teams. Where his failures lie (apart from general things he cannot control) is in some of the assistants through the years. Part of that is a Rice issue-we simply don't pay assistants enough. Part of that is a Bailiff issue-whenever he has a chance, he resorts back to hiring old guys, many of whom are way past their prime and are essentially RIP as it was referred to above.

Whenever Bailiff has hired a younger guy, it has generally turned out well. Herman and Miller were well regarded on the 08 staff. Beaty and Reagan were somewhat up and comers. David Sloan and Anthony Steward are well thought of on the current staff. However, with the exception of Thurmond, the old guys have been disasters. Zaunbrecher, Driesbach, now Edmondson. There is a reason these old coaches are floating around. It's because they aren't very good.

As long as we are stuck with Bailiff--and we are stuck with him for another year or two, like or not--we should find some way to rectify this problem. Some of it is paying assistants more (and Bailiff claims this is the main issue--he cannot afford who he would like to hire). But I know for a fact there are some good young coaches out there who have shown some interest in Rice, but Bailiff hasn't been interested.

The fact is, offensive football especially nowadays is a young man's game. Go look at all these offenses in the Big 12 scoring big points--almost all of them are led by young guys. Kingsbury, Briles' kid, Meachem and Cumby, Lincoln Riley at OU. Even the SEC has gone this route--Kiffin at Bama, Jake Spavital at A&M. Or just look down the road at who we used to have and what he is doing over there. We need to hire young whiz kids (like we did with Applewhite and Herman) and give them control of the offense, and watch the (good) results. Then when they move on to "better" jobs, we need to get the next set of whiz kids, instead of feelings getting hurt and us ending up with an old zero like Edmondson.

Good post.

As for the bolded part, my feelings are well summarized in my signature.

(11-05-2015 12:35 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 12:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am pretty sure that if Bailiff starting benching players for making mistakes, as is wanted here, the complaint here would quickly change to he panics too easily and abandons the game plan too soon.

What plan?

I'm still trying to figure it out, 9 years on...

I'm not sure why you need to know our plan. Just because you can't figure it out doesn't mean he doesn't have one. I'm sure that former players could tell us more though.

(11-05-2015 01:51 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 01:49 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  Look, Bailiff is what he is. He is a Mack Brown-lite. He is good with high school coaches and recruits and hangs out with some boosters and generally is liked around campus. An X's and O's guru he is not. He never has been and never will be.

Like Mack, he relies on his assistants to run the shows--offense, defense and special teams. Where his failures lie (apart from general things he cannot control) is in some of the assistants through the years. Part of that is a Rice issue-we simply don't pay assistants enough. Part of that is a Bailiff issue-whenever he has a chance, he resorts back to hiring old guys, many of whom are way past their prime and are essentially RIP as it was referred to above.

Whenever Bailiff has hired a younger guy, it has generally turned out well. Herman and Miller were well regarded on the 08 staff. Beaty and Reagan were somewhat up and comers. David Sloan and Anthony Steward are well thought of on the current staff. However, with the exception of Thurmond, the old guys have been disasters. Zaunbrecher, Driesbach, now Edmondson. There is a reason these old coaches are floating around. It's because they aren't very good.

As long as we are stuck with Bailiff--and we are stuck with him for another year or two, like or not--we should find some way to rectify this problem. Some of it is paying assistants more (and Bailiff claims this is the main issue--he cannot afford who he would like to hire). But I know for a fact there are some good young coaches out there who have shown some interest in Rice, but Bailiff hasn't been interested.

The fact is, offensive football especially nowadays is a young man's game. Go look at all these offenses in the Big 12 scoring big points--almost all of them are led by young guys. Kingsbury, Briles' kid, Meachem and Cumby, Lincoln Riley at OU. Even the SEC has gone this route--Kiffin at Bama, Jake Spavital at A&M. Or just look down the road at who we used to have and what he is doing over there. We need to hire young whiz kids (like we did with Applewhite and Herman) and give them control of the offense, and watch the (good) results. Then when they move on to "better" jobs, we need to get the next set of whiz kids, instead of feelings getting hurt and us ending up with an old zero like Edmondson.

Good post.

As for the bolded part, my feelings are well summarized in my signature.

I'm not sure how much stock we should put in what Jordan Belfort says if we want to run a clean program. There's a chance the this exact quote was hanging in SMU's locker room in the 80s...

While the budget for assistants may not be what is keeping Bailiff from hiring people (unless some of us have the coaches ear, we truly don't know), I find that when it comes to excuses, it probably is closer to a rationale than an excuse as to why we have who we have.

I assume, without looking at this closely, that we have lost more coaches because they have left for other gigs than because we fired them. That could be caused by the fact that Bailiff likes to hold on to guys (see Driesbach and our OC hiring method recently), but it could also be heavily influenced on what we are willing to pay to retain our proven assistant coaches. I'm not sure if there is a good way to tell which one it is, though.