(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

Yeah, it will. It may not get us all the way to where we want to go, but a new coach put in this situation could take us to the next level (which for me is Top 50 - 75, and being competitive against teams in that ranking range). Yes, a high-energy, innovative coach could do that with DB's existing team, IMO.

(12-06-2015 06:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

Those things are not going to change.

If there is somebody who can succeed with those things in place, then we need to find and hire him. If not, then we probably need to move to D-3.

This.

I'm starting to think the D3 option is inevitable.

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look and who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

This. Same exact reason why the 3 bowls thing hasn't caused a stampede of interest or a real bump in attendance - Rice students and alums aren't stupid. They see what happens when we play real teams and rapidly lose interest. My friends from college, during the Texas game looked at me and said "I thought you said we were better than we were in college".

Smoke and mirrors aren't going to fool anyone.

Ctrl + C
Ctrl + V

Repeat a thousand times in 30 different threads.

(12-06-2015 08:02 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Ctrl + C
Ctrl + V

Repeat a thousand times in 30 different threads.

No way.... all this time, I have had two windows open and I have retyped the same stuff manually. Thanks! Now I can do it so much faster! Maybe to the order of 120 threads?

Any other tips? Should I stop using Internet Explorer 5?

(12-06-2015 07:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

Those things are not going to change.

If there is somebody who can succeed with those things in place, then we need to find and hire him. If not, then we probably need to move to D-3.

This.

I'm starting to think the D3 option is inevitable.

D3 is not an option. It is a penalty, apparently one incurred by not firing Bailiff.

(12-06-2015 05:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never give up on Plan A until you know what Plan B is. Right now, we don't have a viable Plan B, or at least I don't think we do. One thing we have to be very mindful of is marketplace perception. The world thinks David is doing an amazing job. We fire him now, and a lot of good coaches are going to pass on even talking to us. Let him go 3-9 next year, and we can fire him and retain credibility with the market.

That's my sense also. I word the question as: would a promising young coach perceive the Rice job to be a good career move? 10 years ago, the answer was yes. Now, I'm not so sure.

I think the best chance would be coaches who have coached against us (e.g. La Tech coordinators) or who played or previously worked at Rice (Roper, Applewhite). But for all I really know, those guys might not want anything to do with Rice.

(Note that even in the 2005 scenario, the guy we eventually came to terms with was the one who knew first hand that Quinton Smith and Jarett Dillard were excellent players.)

My assumption is that Karlgaard has a more accurate read on the actual candidate pool (and on the feasibility of a buyout) than every poster here.

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

You guys would argue if someone said the sun set in the west.

All I said was that after tying the most wins in a 4-year period, 3 bowls, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship and lots of NFL players, PLUS the EZF facility we probably have been in as good a shape recruiting as we could be given our G5 situation.

And THAT leads to the need for someone to imply that "No one in their right mind would want to come here"?

thanks guys, why stop there, buy a billboard.

For years I've read posts on why our academics are a positive and we ought to get players who understand what Rice has to offer.

Now, it's "the guys who we recruit are too smart to be taken in, they'll see that a Rice offer is a pile of crap."

Normally, if someone were to say that Bailiff is at a recruiting disadvantage, you'd jump down their throat as a "maker of excuses", a "tolerator". You'd say there's no reason that "Bailiff shouldn't be out-recruiting every CUSA program, knock off the excuses."

I try and be positive about our recruiting chances and I get this?

Bailiff must've fooled somebody, because he's sure put a bunch of people in the NFL. None of what I wrote is incorrect, and after what we've seen about Bailiff in the press, obviously he's someone with whom parents rightly will trust their kids.

Honestly, some of you don't read the content of the post or think through what your typing. I'd swear you look to see who posted and immediately start to argue based on the name.

(12-06-2015 10:13 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 05:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never give up on Plan A until you know what Plan B is. Right now, we don't have a viable Plan B, or at least I don't think we do. One thing we have to be very mindful of is marketplace perception. The world thinks David is doing an amazing job. We fire him now, and a lot of good coaches are going to pass on even talking to us. Let him go 3-9 next year, and we can fire him and retain credibility with the market.

That's my sense also. I word the question as: would a promising young coach perceive the Rice job to be a good career move? 10 years ago, the answer was yes. Now, I'm not so sure.

Arguably, Rice is producing better players now than 10 years ago. Plus at least 2 head coaches were recently Rice's OC. It's not a bad spot for young coaches.

(12-06-2015 08:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Any other tips? Should I stop using Internet Explorer 5?

FIFY. Yes, please.

(12-07-2015 01:13 AM)MOBweb Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 08:05 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Any other tips? Should I stop using Internet Explorer 5?

FIFY. Yes, please.

(12-07-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

You guys would argue if someone said the sun set in the west.

All I said was that after tying the most wins in a 4-year period, 3 bowls, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship and lots of NFL players, PLUS the EZF facility we probably have been in as good a shape recruiting as we could be given our G5 situation.

And THAT leads to the need for someone to imply that "No one in their right mind would want to come here"?

thanks guys, why stop there, buy a billboard.

For years I've read posts on why our academics are a positive and we ought to get players who understand what Rice has to offer.

Now, it's "the guys who we recruit are too smart to be taken in, they'll see that a Rice offer is a pile of crap."

Normally, if someone were to say that Bailiff is at a recruiting disadvantage, you'd jump down their throat as a "maker of excuses", a "tolerator". You'd say there's no reason that "Bailiff shouldn't be out-recruiting every CUSA program, knock off the excuses."

I try and be positive about our recruiting chances and I get this?

Bailiff must've fooled somebody, because he's sure put a bunch of people in the NFL. None of what I wrote is incorrect, and after what we've seen about Bailiff in the press, obviously he's someone with whom parents rightly will trust their kids.

Honestly, some of you don't read the content of the post or think through what your typing. I'd swear you look to see who posted and immediately start to argue based on the name.

Nice rant, Rick, but the statement I made in response to your post was accurate. The 29-17 4-year record has little positive significance to recruits when they look beyond the surface and recognize who those wins were against....and then they see this past year's 5-7 record (which in itself looks much better than it actually was) with our best victory coming from an eeked out win against a 3-9 team.

Trust me, your repetitive posts are as grating to me and others as mine are to you.

(12-07-2015 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

You guys would argue if someone said the sun set in the west.

All I said was that after tying the most wins in a 4-year period, 3 bowls, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship and lots of NFL players, PLUS the EZF facility we probably have been in as good a shape recruiting as we could be given our G5 situation.

And THAT leads to the need for someone to imply that "No one in their right mind would want to come here"?

thanks guys, why stop there, buy a billboard.

For years I've read posts on why our academics are a positive and we ought to get players who understand what Rice has to offer.

Now, it's "the guys who we recruit are too smart to be taken in, they'll see that a Rice offer is a pile of crap."

Normally, if someone were to say that Bailiff is at a recruiting disadvantage, you'd jump down their throat as a "maker of excuses", a "tolerator". You'd say there's no reason that "Bailiff shouldn't be out-recruiting every CUSA program, knock off the excuses."

I try and be positive about our recruiting chances and I get this?

Bailiff must've fooled somebody, because he's sure put a bunch of people in the NFL. None of what I wrote is incorrect, and after what we've seen about Bailiff in the press, obviously he's someone with whom parents rightly will trust their kids.

Honestly, some of you don't read the content of the post or think through what your typing. I'd swear you look to see who posted and immediately start to argue based on the name.

Nice rant, Rick, but the statement I made in response to your post was accurate. The 29-17 4-year record has little positive significance to recruits when they look beyond the surface and recognize who those wins were against....and then they see this past year's 5-7 record (which in itself looks much better than it actually was) with our best victory coming from an eeked out win against a 3-9 team.

Trust me, your repetitive posts are as grating to me and others as mine are to you.

Walt, I just don't think recruits analyze things that closely, and if they do, some of them may want to be part of the group that take what others have done and takes it to new heights. Most of the 4 and 5 star athletes who just want to mark time until they go to the NFL are not looking at us anyway. Most of the ones who want a good degree, and/or a chance to play, and/or a chance to go to bowls, and/or anything probably won't run the analysis you indicate and then use the results to nix us.

JMHO.

(12-07-2015 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 06:46 PM)davidw Wrote:  won't make any difference who coaches us until we deal with the budget and recruiting restraints.

With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

You guys would argue if someone said the sun set in the west.

All I said was that after tying the most wins in a 4-year period, 3 bowls, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship and lots of NFL players, PLUS the EZF facility we probably have been in as good a shape recruiting as we could be given our G5 situation.

And THAT leads to the need for someone to imply that "No one in their right mind would want to come here"?

thanks guys, why stop there, buy a billboard.

For years I've read posts on why our academics are a positive and we ought to get players who understand what Rice has to offer.

Now, it's "the guys who we recruit are too smart to be taken in, they'll see that a Rice offer is a pile of crap."

Normally, if someone were to say that Bailiff is at a recruiting disadvantage, you'd jump down their throat as a "maker of excuses", a "tolerator". You'd say there's no reason that "Bailiff shouldn't be out-recruiting every CUSA program, knock off the excuses."

I try and be positive about our recruiting chances and I get this?

Bailiff must've fooled somebody, because he's sure put a bunch of people in the NFL. None of what I wrote is incorrect, and after what we've seen about Bailiff in the press, obviously he's someone with whom parents rightly will trust their kids.

Honestly, some of you don't read the content of the post or think through what your typing. I'd swear you look to see who posted and immediately start to argue based on the name.

Nice rant, Rick, but the statement I made in response to your post was accurate. The 29-17 4-year record has little positive significance to recruits when they look beyond the surface and recognize who those wins were against....and then they see this past year's 5-7 record (which in itself looks much better than it actually was) with our best victory coming from an eeked out win against a 3-9 team.

Trust me, your repetitive posts are as grating to me and others as mine are to you.

Walt, my posting rate is less than yours or Ant's (who has been on the board for a shorter period of time). I do not find all of your posts grating either.

The post you jumped in on, was a response to DavidW (who is pro-Bailiff, and who generally I agree with). I actually figured Ant or someone else would go after his post (as I described in my 'rant' above).

You've picked out a single positive to argue, in a list of multiple positives I listed as to why we probably have as good a recruiting situation as we can have under our G5 circumstances. And I wasn't arguing with anyone in the ABB group (or even DavidW actually, just trying to be encouraging) to begin with.

The impression I'm getting, and I may be wrong, is that, in this instance, you found it grating that I was being marginally positive.

I kind of expected that ABB posters would've been happy I wasn't making recruiting an "excuse".

(12-07-2015 09:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:25 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:03 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:41 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 07:11 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  With our recent bowl stretch, 29-17 recent record, a conference championship in 2013, the EZF facility (and the track / soccer improvements as a side note), and the positive publicity we've garnered from a bunch of stuff DB has done, I think we're in as good a position for recruiting as we can be (given the conference, G5 status and attendance, which has been bad for 15 years.)

(Get your point, but I do think we have some positives to sell.)

Rick, you do realize high school recruits that qualify academically for Rice are going to look beyond that 29-17 record, and look at who we've beaten and how we've played against everybody else with a pulse. It's not a flattering picture, or one attractive to recruits.

You guys would argue if someone said the sun set in the west.

All I said was that after tying the most wins in a 4-year period, 3 bowls, 2 bowl wins, 1 conference championship and lots of NFL players, PLUS the EZF facility we probably have been in as good a shape recruiting as we could be given our G5 situation.

And THAT leads to the need for someone to imply that "No one in their right mind would want to come here"?

thanks guys, why stop there, buy a billboard.

For years I've read posts on why our academics are a positive and we ought to get players who understand what Rice has to offer.

Now, it's "the guys who we recruit are too smart to be taken in, they'll see that a Rice offer is a pile of crap."

Normally, if someone were to say that Bailiff is at a recruiting disadvantage, you'd jump down their throat as a "maker of excuses", a "tolerator". You'd say there's no reason that "Bailiff shouldn't be out-recruiting every CUSA program, knock off the excuses."

I try and be positive about our recruiting chances and I get this?

Bailiff must've fooled somebody, because he's sure put a bunch of people in the NFL. None of what I wrote is incorrect, and after what we've seen about Bailiff in the press, obviously he's someone with whom parents rightly will trust their kids.

Honestly, some of you don't read the content of the post or think through what your typing. I'd swear you look to see who posted and immediately start to argue based on the name.

Nice rant, Rick, but the statement I made in response to your post was accurate. The 29-17 4-year record has little positive significance to recruits when they look beyond the surface and recognize who those wins were against....and then they see this past year's 5-7 record (which in itself looks much better than it actually was) with our best victory coming from an eeked out win against a 3-9 team.

Trust me, your repetitive posts are as grating to me and others as mine are to you.

Walt, my posting rate is less than yours or Ant's (who has been on the board for a shorter period of time). I do not find all of your posts grating either.

The post you jumped in on, was a response to DavidW (who is pro-Bailiff, and who generally I agree with). I actually figured Ant or someone else would go after his post (as I described in my 'rant' above).

You've picked out a single positive to argue, in a list of multiple positives I listed as to why we probably have as good a recruiting situation as we can have under our G5 circumstances. And I wasn't arguing with anyone in the ABB group (or even DavidW actually, just trying to be encouraging) to begin with.

The impression I'm getting, and I may be wrong, is that, in this instance, you found it grating that I was being marginally positive.

I kind of expected that ABB posters would've been happy I wasn't making recruiting an "excuse".

Rick, my posting rate is higher because of baseball, where I actively engage in in-game posts when not at games. With regard to the Bailiff debate, I'd be shocked if your post rate is not close to double mine. Seriously.

(12-07-2015 09:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ABB posters would've been happy ...

That's a really cute acronym.

Of course, no one has ever advocated replacing Bailiff without a concrete plan to significantly increase coaching salaries (HC and assistants) and put a concrete plan together to ensure that we maximize the probability that we bring in a coach who can take us to the next level.

But whatever, right?

(12-07-2015 09:59 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ABB posters would've been happy ...

That's a really cute acronym.

Of course, no one has ever advocated replacing Bailiff without a concrete plan to significantly increase coaching salaries (HC and assistants) and put a concrete plan together to ensure that we maximize the probability that we bring in a coach who can take us to the next level.

But whatever, right?

When people defend a whole group and say "no one has ever", I believe they are projecting their own 'thoroughly rational, reasoned beliefs' on to everyone who falls within a group that they are associating with.

There's a pretty wide range of all positions here. I think all of us tend to react when someone responds from a position we disagree with, as if the post is directed personally at them. That's not always the case, and defining everyone within a group (ABB or otherwise) as being in lockstep with our own beliefs is probably inaccurate.

If by 'concrete plan' you mean that you (and those ABB posters who have been vocal in wanting to increase assistant pay, which is only a subset) advocate more pay for assistants and the HC, okay I guess. But I would define a concrete plan as identifying a source for those funds. Given our large deficit spending, and our AD's recent expenditures (EZF share, and track/soccer, not to mention recently completed tennis facilities), I haven't heard a concrete plan from anyone to raise coaches salaries.

But I will agree with you, that if a coaching change is made, either the HC or a coordinator, etc. it would be in the football program's best interests to increase salaries.

(12-07-2015 10:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  There's a pretty wide range of all positions here. I think all of us tend to react when someone responds from a position we disagree with, as if the post is directed personally at them. That's not always the case, and defining everyone within a group (ABB or otherwise) as being in lockstep with our own beliefs is probably inaccurate.

Even more inaccurate is lumping everyone you disagree with into one broad mischaracterization. Has even one person you are debating with actually advocated "anybody but Bailiff"?

(12-07-2015 09:59 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ABB posters would've been happy ...

That's a really cute acronym.

Of course, no one has ever advocated replacing Bailiff without a concrete plan to significantly increase coaching salaries (HC and assistants) and put a concrete plan together to ensure that we maximize the probability that we bring in a coach who can take us to the next level.

But whatever, right?

the acronym is not quite accurate, but it is a handy way to identify the group that wants bailiff gone and will point out or invent anything to bolster their argument.

A few weeks back I posted here that the plan seemed to be:

Step one: fire Bailiff

Nobody came up with much a plan for step two and beyond, other than we can trust JK to find us a great coach because he did so well on basketball. There seems to be some cooling on that now.

I have been a advocate of the idea that we could be worse off, and I would really like to see a plan that minimizes that risk. All I get from the ABB crowd is that we can't be worse off and so we must step off the cliff. Not the best plan in my opinion.

But go ahead, let's hear the plan.