(12-07-2015 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be the voice of reason.

... any of the ABB crazies ...

So you are the "voice of reason" ... but people who don't agree with you are "crazies."

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard for a little while.

(12-07-2015 09:19 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I try to be the voice of reason.

... any of the ABB crazies ...

So you are the "voice of reason" ... but people who don't agree with you are "crazies."

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard for a little while.

Yes, people who take anything and try to twist it into a negative for Bailiff certainly are crazed somewhat by their hatred for bailiff. The Bob/manipulation theme is a good example, but it hardly stands alone.

who better to oppose the crazies than the voice of reason? Opposing the wild statements made by the anti-Bailiff crown has gotten me labeled as Bailiff defender, but in reality all I do is point out inconsistencies and inaccuracies in what they say. Walt points out the record. I have nothing to say. Facts are facts. Somebody else claims he doesn't want to win because he has a long term contract. I throw the BS flag. Conjecture is not facts. Unreasonable conjecture for sure isn't.

(12-07-2015 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  crazed somewhat by their hatred for bailiff.

It's truly an experiment in amateur psychology to watch someone convince themselves that their point in a debate/dispute is the "voice of reason".

Do you actually think anyone on here really "hates" Bailiff vs. just thinks he's not the right person to be the head coach of this football team?

(12-07-2015 10:01 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  crazed somewhat by their hatred for bailiff.

It's truly an experiment in amateur psychology to watch someone convince themselves that their point in a debate/dispute is the "voice of reason".

Do you actually think anyone on here really "hates" Bailiff vs. just thinks he's not the right person to be the head coach of this football team?

Some hate his being our coach to the point they will say anything about him that is negative, and sometimes the school and players get caught in the shot pattern.

Others are more reasonable, and I count you in the second group, OCO.

he may not be the right person. Certainly not the best. If not, let's all keep our criticisms real, and not follow each other off the cliff like lemmings.

(12-07-2015 10:01 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  It's truly an experiment in amateur psychology to watch someone convince themselves that their point in a debate/dispute is the "voice of reason".

This reminds me of a fight I had long ago with my then wife. I can't remember the topic, but eventually got fed up and told me "You just want to argue because you think you're right!"

Kind of describes both sides in the ongoing bailiff debates.

(12-07-2015 10:01 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  crazed somewhat by their hatred for bailiff.

It's truly an experiment in amateur psychology to watch someone convince themselves that their point in a debate/dispute is the "voice of reason".

Do you actually think anyone on here really "hates" Bailiff vs. just thinks he's not the right person to be the head coach of this football team?

Sometimes I can't tell. I'd say overwhelmingly no, but then we get a small smattering of posters suggesting that either Bailiff orchestrated Bob's video or that they wouldn't put it past him to do such a thing, which makes me question if they think something more strongly than just that he is not the right person for Rice.

I do think we currently just have a board that is overall infected by the desire to be "right" about the DB situation, whatever that means, that almost any comment, about anything, finds its way back to either pro and con-DB posts. I'm honestly thinking it would be a good idea for some heavy moderation of threads not related to DB (like basketball or baseball threads in the future) to nip that in the bud. I think it would make the Parliament much more enjoyable again.

OO,

Sorry if I merged the 'voices of reason' with those promulgating the notion of 'unprecedented success'. I was unaware that these were discrete groups. I stand corrected.

Yes you're right differences do matter, but they're not prima facie that we cannot compete. In my memory we played (#1 ranked as of today) Clemson close at home and were often referred to as "those pesky Owls". I went up to Columbus and watched some pesky Owls lose to Ohio State. After the game the OSU fans were baying for HC Cooper's blood because they felt it was embarrassing to be played that close at home by Rice.

So I agree differences do matter, but I don't think we're disadvantaged against ~100 opponents.

And not to put words in Walt's mouth, but I believe he distances himself from the 'win is a win is a win' mantra pointing out those wins were primarily against the lowest quartile or quintile of competition.

If you win all or almost all your games, then most people will cut you some slack if you lose to a UConn. But we're nowhere near that at present and haven't been in well over ?? years. As great as the win was over Marshall for the conference championship it appears to be an aberration not a starting point of "unprecendented success".

I wish JK would end this argument over DB's position because its his decision and having factions picking fly faeces out of black pepper or versi vice over each other's arguments doesn't help anyone, especially the program.

(12-07-2015 10:27 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  OO,

Sorry if I merged the 'voices of reason' with those promulgating the notion of 'unprecedented success'. I was unaware that these were discrete groups. I stand corrected.

Yes you're right differences do matter, but they're not prima facie that we cannot compete. In my memory we played (#1 ranked as of today) Clemson close at home and were often referred to as "those pesky Owls". I went up to Columbus and watched some pesky Owls lose to Ohio State. After the game the OSU fans were baying for HC Cooper's blood because they felt it was embarrassing to be played that close at home by Rice.

So I agree differences do matter, but I don't think we're disadvantaged against ~100 opponents.

And not to put words in Walt's mouth, but I believe he distances himself from the 'win is a win is a win' mantra pointing out those wins were primarily against the lowest quartile or quintile of competition.

If you win all or almost all your games, then most people will cut you some slack if you lose to a UConn. But we're nowhere near that at present and haven't been in well over ?? years. As great as the win was over Marshall for the conference championship it appears to be an aberration not a starting point of "unprecendented success".

I wish JK would end this argument over DB's position because its his decision and having factions picking fly faeces out of black pepper or versi vice over each other's arguments doesn't help anyone, especially the program.

Now it seems we are much closer. I must correct the impression that I said we are disadvantaged against 100+ opponents or that we are disadvantaged in every way or that we can't compete. As I said, we need to press our advantages and overcome our disadvantages, vis-à-vis each and every other school. Those advantages/disadvantages vary from school to school, but we need to use them in the best way to win. I remember nobody, specifically me, saying losing is OK because we have some disadvantages.

(12-07-2015 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now it seems we are much closer. I must correct the impression that I said we are disadvantaged against 100+ opponents or that we are disadvantaged in every way or that we can't compete. As I said, we need to press our advantages and overcome our disadvantages, vis-à-vis each and every other school. Those advantages/disadvantages vary from school to school, but we need to use them in the best way to win.

I agree 100% that we need to start focusing on our advantages. We've spent far too long dwelling on our disadvantages. We really don't do enough with our advantages. Wayne Graham is the one obvious exception, and we see the results he has gotten.

Quote:I remember nobody, specifically me, saying losing is OK because we have some disadvantages.

I am quite certain that you do not intend it that way, but that's the way it comes across. And at best, it's not a far piece from your words to that sentiment. When I say that the mantra of Rice athletics for 50 years has been, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," I'm referring to an endless litany of comments like yours and Rick's. I am quite certain that neither of you intend that. I would ask that you refrain from even suggesting anything that might be construed that way, because otherwise I am afraid that you are part of the problem.

And I'm quite convinced that neither you nor Rick intend your comments to be taken that way. I'm just asking you to be aware of the context.

Please let me be 100% clear. I'm not intending this as an attack on you (or Rick or anyone else). I just fear that there is this huge inertia out there that has been feeding on itself for 50 years, and I am afraid that you are unintentionally feeding that beast.

(12-07-2015 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:01 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  crazed somewhat by their hatred for bailiff.

It's truly an experiment in amateur psychology to watch someone convince themselves that their point in a debate/dispute is the "voice of reason".

Do you actually think anyone on here really "hates" Bailiff vs. just thinks he's not the right person to be the head coach of this football team?

Sometimes I can't tell. I'd say overwhelmingly no, but then we get a small smattering of posters suggesting that either Bailiff orchestrated Bob's video or that they wouldn't put it past him to do such a thing, which makes me question if they think something more strongly than just that he is not the right person for Rice.

I do think we currently just have a board that is overall infected by the desire to be "right" about the DB situation, whatever that means, that almost any comment, about anything, finds its way back to either pro and con-DB posts. I'm honestly thinking it would be a good idea for some heavy moderation of threads not related to DB (like basketball or baseball threads in the future) to nip that in the bud. I think it would make the Parliament much more enjoyable again.

Agree completely - and yes, I do think some posters have said things that would make you think they have a personal issue with Bailiff.

I honestly don't know why we are having the same discussions over and over and over. Really hope we can discuss basketball and baseball without every thread devolving into a Bailiff thread...

(12-07-2015 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think we currently just have a board that is overall infected by the desire to be "right" about the DB situation, whatever that means, that almost any comment, about anything, finds its way back to either pro and con-DB posts. I'm honestly thinking it would be a good idea for some heavy moderation of threads not related to DB (like basketball or baseball threads in the future) to nip that in the bud. I think it would make the Parliament much more enjoyable again.

Its not a desire to be right, its knowing you have been right for years and still have to watch the train run off the tracks. I would much prefer to be wrong.

The problem is, there have been posters here, one who is a status quo defender "4life" who have been wrong about absolutely everything from Bailiff, to Braun to Greenspan. And our program has suffered because of this inertia. As Owl69 said, we need to stop feeding the beast of mediocrity.

(12-07-2015 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now it seems we are much closer. I must correct the impression that I said we are disadvantaged against 100+ opponents or that we are disadvantaged in every way or that we can't compete. As I said, we need to press our advantages and overcome our disadvantages, vis-à-vis each and every other school. Those advantages/disadvantages vary from school to school, but we need to use them in the best way to win.

I agree 100% that we need to start focusing on our advantages. We've spent far too long dwelling on our disadvantages. We really don't do enough with our advantages. Wayne Graham is the one obvious exception, and we see the results he has gotten.

Quote:I remember nobody, specifically me, saying losing is OK because we have some disadvantages.

I am quite certain that you do not intend it that way, but that's the way it comes across. And at best, it's not a far piece from your words to that sentiment. When I say that the mantra of Rice athletics for 50 years has been, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," I'm referring to an endless litany of comments like yours and Rick's. I am quite certain that neither of you intend that. I would ask that you refrain from even suggesting anything that might be construed that way, because otherwise I am afraid that you are part of the problem.

And I'm quite convinced that neither you nor Rick intend your comments to be taken that way. I'm just asking you to be aware of the context.

Please let me be 100% clear. I'm not intending this as an attack on you (or Rick or anyone else). I just fear that there is this huge inertia out there that has been feeding on itself for 50 years, and I am afraid that you are unintentionally feeding that beast.

Don't think I take it that way from you. I am never a part of the problem as I have no say in any decisions.

Your views tend to be relatively close to mine in general if not specifics. I doubt that surprises you, although to the degree I've been stereotyped by some as opposed to what I've tried to convey in my posts, I suspect that admission will bother you more than it does me.

(12-07-2015 12:09 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I do think we currently just have a board that is overall infected by the desire to be "right" about the DB situation, whatever that means, that almost any comment, about anything, finds its way back to either pro and con-DB posts. I'm honestly thinking it would be a good idea for some heavy moderation of threads not related to DB (like basketball or baseball threads in the future) to nip that in the bud. I think it would make the Parliament much more enjoyable again.

Its not a desire to be right, its knowing you have been right for years and still have to watch the train run off the tracks. I would much prefer to be wrong.

The problem is, there have been posters here, one who is a status quo defender "4life" who have been wrong about absolutely everything from Bailiff, to Braun to Greenspan. And our program has suffered because of this inertia. As Owl69 said, we need to stop feeding the beast of mediocrity.

That isn't how any of this works. You do not know what is right and wrong when it comes to the athletic department because nothing has been carried out. You can very well have an opinion on what is right and wrong, but unless you can see into the future, you can't know anything.

The right way that you know will take us to the promise land, could very well turn out to be wrong, for totally unforeseen circumstances. The risk may be less, but it could very well be wrong as well.

Now, I believe that you can know that we are doing something wrong, since it isn't achieving the goals set forth by the administration, but (while this is getting a bit into the semantics of things) doing the opposite of the wrong thing might not be right, as it could be equally wrong.

But this then all comes back to another post I had, about how people have been assigning others into groups and how that does nothing good. Assigning people to the pro- or anti-DB base is one thing, as it really is just generalizing positions on a topic, but as you start to assign "rightness" and "wrongness" you go down a path that we shouldn't be going down, IMO. It become divisive and unconstructive, but I don't think you care much about that issue.

I agree that we should stop feeding the beast, but you don't do that by telling people that you're right and they're wrong - that often only gets people to become more entrenched.

(12-07-2015 12:24 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:40 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Now it seems we are much closer. I must correct the impression that I said we are disadvantaged against 100+ opponents or that we are disadvantaged in every way or that we can't compete. As I said, we need to press our advantages and overcome our disadvantages, vis-à-vis each and every other school. Those advantages/disadvantages vary from school to school, but we need to use them in the best way to win.

I agree 100% that we need to start focusing on our advantages. We've spent far too long dwelling on our disadvantages. We really don't do enough with our advantages. Wayne Graham is the one obvious exception, and we see the results he has gotten.

Quote:I remember nobody, specifically me, saying losing is OK because we have some disadvantages.

I am quite certain that you do not intend it that way, but that's the way it comes across. And at best, it's not a far piece from your words to that sentiment. When I say that the mantra of Rice athletics for 50 years has been, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," I'm referring to an endless litany of comments like yours and Rick's. I am quite certain that neither of you intend that. I would ask that you refrain from even suggesting anything that might be construed that way, because otherwise I am afraid that you are part of the problem.
And I'm quite convinced that neither you nor Rick intend your comments to be taken that way. I'm just asking you to be aware of the context.
Please let me be 100% clear. I'm not intending this as an attack on you (or Rick or anyone else). I just fear that there is this huge inertia out there that has been feeding on itself for 50 years, and I am afraid that you are unintentionally feeding that beast.

Don't think I take it that way from you. I am never a part of the problem as I have no say in any decisions.
Your views tend to be relatively close to mine in general if not specifics. I doubt that surprises you, although to the degree I've been stereotyped by some as opposed to what I've tried to convey in my posts, I suspect that admission will bother you more than it does me.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I think you're a damn strong Owl supporter who is passionate but reasonable in expressing your thoughts. If we had 30,000 just like you, we would have very few problems with our athletic program.

We don't always agree, but you pretty much stay away from the personal attacks, and as long as that's the case I enjoy discussing things with you.

I do worry about exactly what I referenced in the post, that being too Pollyanna-ish about our failures and invoking the restrictions under which we operate serves primarily to feed the beast of mediocrity.