(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

(01-18-2016 05:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

(01-18-2016 05:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

But what about EZF's?

(01-19-2016 07:42 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 05:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

But what about EZF's?

I'll bite.

Regarding EZFs (and facilities in general), probably every one of those 7 (6 of which are P5) have facilities and support services that blow Rice out of the water. And at least 6 of those 7 presumably have budgets that do the same too.

(01-19-2016 07:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 07:42 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 05:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

But what about EZF's?

I'll bite.

Regarding EZFs (and facilities in general), probably every one of those 7 (6 of which are P5) have facilities and support services that blow Rice out of the water. And at least 6 of those 7 presumably have budgets that do the same too.

Yes and you could probably put a few HS on the list in Texas as well and they would come in above our old facilities.

(01-19-2016 07:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 07:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 07:42 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 05:39 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 04:14 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/college-...ches-texas

Someone want to do a comparison with salaries?

7th out of 9 coaches who have actually coached a game is not very impressive.

But what about EZF's?

I'll bite.

Regarding EZFs (and facilities in general), probably every one of those 7 (6 of which are P5) have facilities and support services that blow Rice out of the water. And at least 6 of those 7 presumably have budgets that do the same too.

Yes and you could probably put a few HS on the list in Texas as well and they would come in above our old facilities.

Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

On a side note, look at the list of those 6 coaches above DB. The only coach I am surprised ranks above us is Kingsbury. Every other coach is better than Bailiff, no question. Patterson, Briles, Herman, Sumlin, Strong, have all demonstrated to be better coaches at either their current school, or their previous one.

I like the way they describe Rice as an "academic powerhouse that 'dabbles' in football." So true. I'd also like to know what Bailiff could do with the same resources afforded to those ranked higher on the list. It's too bad we'll never know.

(01-19-2016 09:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  I like the way they describe Rice as an "academic powerhouse that 'dabbles' in football." So true.

Hopefully not much longer. The EZF and increased attention to the program give me hope. The retention of Bailiff does not.

(01-19-2016 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

A true statement that pretty much no one here has ever argued against.

The lack of institutional support has always been a recognized shortfall; it has to change. The lack of a quality coach has not been a recognized shortfall to many; that also has to change

(01-19-2016 10:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

A true statement that pretty much no one here has ever argued against.

The lack of institutional support has always been a recognized shortfall; it has to change. The lack of a quality coach has not been a recognized shortfall to many; that also has to change

Can't change one without the other...

(01-19-2016 10:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

A true statement that pretty much no one here has ever argued against.

The lack of institutional support has always been a recognized shortfall; it has to change. The lack of a quality coach has not been a recognized shortfall to many; that also has to change

My point is that, IMO, the relationship between the two is much more connected than some on here think. That in order for you to have a quality coach, you have to have institutional support and not hamstring them. I do not think a quality coach could come in and solve all of our problems - we need the university to do some of that work as well. Luckily it appears that they are starting to.

(01-19-2016 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  I like the way they describe Rice as an "academic powerhouse that 'dabbles' in football." So true.

Hopefully not much longer. The EZF and increased attention to the program give me hope. The retention of Bailiff does not.

I can't help but think that Bailiff has, at least, been part of the reason Rice is getting the increased attention that you're referring to. I mean, you just can't ignore how significant it is that Rice went to three straight bowl games, won a conference championship, and has had two 10-win seasons under his leadership. Say all you want about the easy schedule, regular people watching bowl games every year don't care about any of that. They just see Rice in another bowl game, and they take notice.

Bailiff will certainly never be confused for a great coach, but he has done some very significant things at Rice. He may not take us to "the next level," but he'll probably take us to three more bowl games while he's here and he may break the 10-win mark again while doing it.

(01-19-2016 11:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  I like the way they describe Rice as an "academic powerhouse that 'dabbles' in football." So true.

Hopefully not much longer. The EZF and increased attention to the program give me hope. The retention of Bailiff does not.

I can't help but think that Bailiff has, at least, been part of the reason Rice is getting the increased attention that you're referring to. I mean, you just can't ignore how significant it is that Rice went to three straight bowl games, won a conference championship, and has had two 10-win seasons under his leadership. Say all you want about the easy schedule, regular people watching bowl games every year don't care about any of that. They just see Rice in another bowl game, and they take notice.

Bailiff will certainly never be confused for a great coach, but he has done some very significant things at Rice. He may not take us to "the next level," but he'll probably take us to three more bowl games while he's here and he may break the 10-win mark again while doing it.

As much as I like the guy and wanted to see him have continued success at Rice because of his character, I hope to God that he doesn't have the chance to take us to three more bowl games.

I agree with you that he has done good things for Rice, but this should have been his last season as our HC.

(01-19-2016 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

A true statement that pretty much no one here has ever argued against.

The lack of institutional support has always been a recognized shortfall; it has to change. The lack of a quality coach has not been a recognized shortfall to many; that also has to change

My point is that, IMO, the relationship between the two is much more connected than some on here think. That in order for you to have a quality coach, you have to have institutional support and not hamstring them. I do not think a quality coach could come in and solve all of our problems - we need the university to do some of that work as well. Luckily it appears that they are starting to.

No disagreement there. But the way to get fans interested and push for support is to have the right leadership in place. Much like Greenspan managed to alienate everybody, Bailiff is doing his part (not necessarily intentionally) to ensure that Rice has as few fans as humanely possible.

It is unlikely that Rice will all of a sudden decide to spend like crazy unassisted. As a result, the only remaining variable is the coach. The right coach could help prod the BOT and administration to spend more.

(01-19-2016 12:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:03 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:06 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Coaching is undoubtedly the most important aspect of a good program, but I think it's telling that, while we may rank 7 out of 9 for coaches who have actually coached a game at their school, we are unquestionably at the bottom of that list when it comes to institutional support - something that is more important than coaching. It is more important because that, inevitably, affects who coaches the school, and for how long, as well as every other aspect of the program.

A true statement that pretty much no one here has ever argued against.

The lack of institutional support has always been a recognized shortfall; it has to change. The lack of a quality coach has not been a recognized shortfall to many; that also has to change

My point is that, IMO, the relationship between the two is much more connected than some on here think. That in order for you to have a quality coach, you have to have institutional support and not hamstring them. I do not think a quality coach could come in and solve all of our problems - we need the university to do some of that work as well. Luckily it appears that they are starting to.

No disagreement there. But the way to get fans interested and push for support is to have the right leadership in place. Much like Greenspan managed to alienate everybody, Bailiff is doing his part (not necessarily intentionally) to ensure that Rice has as few fans as humanely possible.

It is unlikely that Rice will all of a sudden decide to spend like crazy unassisted. As a result, the only remaining variable is the coach. The right coach could help prod the BOT and administration to spend more.

It's a half measure to just change coaches, IMO. When that coaching change happens, Rice needs to double down and bump financial support across the board. I don't think a simple change in our head coach will change our fortunes significantly, it will take a lot more.

The current position UH is in helps support that notion. UH didn't just start changing coaches as they were hired away or fired, they decided to fully put the entire weight of their administration behind the athletic program, and it is paying off.

Spending by the BOT is going to be an iterative process, if it comes at all. Build the EZF, see what that does, if it brings us along, then maybe invest a bit in the next step. That's actually pretty prudent, considering that the ROI for a lot of major programs is pretty dismal.

(01-19-2016 12:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:59 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 09:55 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  I like the way they describe Rice as an "academic powerhouse that 'dabbles' in football." So true.

Hopefully not much longer. The EZF and increased attention to the program give me hope. The retention of Bailiff does not.

I can't help but think that Bailiff has, at least, been part of the reason Rice is getting the increased attention that you're referring to. I mean, you just can't ignore how significant it is that Rice went to three straight bowl games, won a conference championship, and has had two 10-win seasons under his leadership. Say all you want about the easy schedule, regular people watching bowl games every year don't care about any of that. They just see Rice in another bowl game, and they take notice.

Bailiff will certainly never be confused for a great coach, but he has done some very significant things at Rice. He may not take us to "the next level," but he'll probably take us to three more bowl games while he's here and he may break the 10-win mark again while doing it.

As much as I like the guy and wanted to see him have continued success at Rice because of his character, I hope to God that he doesn't have the chance to take us to three more bowl games.

I agree with you that he has done good things for Rice, but this should have been his last season as our HC.

I think at Rice they realize that there will always be "down" years. It's inevitable.

(01-19-2016 03:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think at Rice they realize that there will always be "down" years. It's inevitable.

Why?

In this conference against this level of competition, a down year at worst should be 7-8 wins vs. 9-10 or more.

(01-19-2016 04:00 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 03:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I think at Rice they realize that there will always be "down" years. It's inevitable.

Why?

In this conference against this level of competition, a down year at worst should be 7-8 wins vs. 9-10 or more.

I agree with Afflicted here, but not in the context of his comment.

There are a VERY select few universities, regardless of conference, that can realistically have down years of 7 or 8 wins. But that is because there are not only up years and down years for a program - there are also the mediocre years, where most programs reside. I think a 7 or 8 win season should not be viewed as a down year, but as one of those mediocre years for us, at this point. When you start getting to .500 or below in this conference, or really any conference, then you can easily call that a down year, and those are obvious blemishes on a coach's record.

An AD should not be so fickle as to, as JK said, throw out the baby with the bathwater due to one down year. It should be expected, with a bit of chagrin, to have a down year every once in a while for a coach. There are plenty of reasons as to why down years might happen, and it is unrealistic to think that a coach can always avoid a conspiring of events.

Now, where I disagree with Afflicted is that I think DB should have been gone after this year because of this down year in combination with the previous down years and the overall feeling of the program right now. Coaches should get mulligans when the environment is right, and at the moment, it is not for DB.

Again, in this conference with a senior QB and 9 years into a program, 5 wins is not a down year, it's a train wreck.