(02-20-2016 02:52 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  RiceOwl53, I've always argued that playing more athletically superior competition leads to injuries. To me, that has always seemed to be the case for Rice. It's like the big bully that picks on the little kids because he knows that they aren't big enough to fight back and are easily dominated. Am I off on that assumption? It only seems logical that less gifted athletes are going to suffer a similar fate against the players at the top schools. What's your take? Do you remember guys getting more beat up against Texas A&M, Texas, and Baylor, than against North Texas, UTSA and UTEP?

This is similar to mrbig's post. And it might be anecdotal evidence because it was only a few P5 schools that we played when I was there. But it definitely seemed like there were more injuries and beat up a little bit more against them than the others.

To Antarius...how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences. I'd say Marshall, La Tech, USM, WKU are better than the teams in the WAC and old MWC of those days.

Of course the argument will be "they didn't have UTSA or ODU in their conference"...just because a team hasn't been around long or has a storied history doesn't mean they aren't a competitive, decent team.

I'm not making excuses. I'm trying to recognize the problem and give solutions. All you do is deride anything that's said that you disagree with (because God forbid someone have better insight than you on anything, except maybe the technical aspects of the game) by claiming it's "more mediocrity" or "that will never work". Your only solution is to get a new coach. More times than not, that is not the remedy. Rarely does a coach come in and immediately turn things around. Plus, he has to have the resources to get the people he wants here. Which Rice does not adequately do. There's a reason it's either really young guys or guys in the twilight of their career as coaches.

I'm done with this. I have better things to do with my life than argue the same points over and over. Even if it's sitting in an 8 hour long Saturday law class. I'd rather do that. hahaha.

(02-20-2016 10:49 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 02:52 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  RiceOwl53, I've always argued that playing more athletically superior competition leads to injuries. To me, that has always seemed to be the case for Rice. It's like the big bully that picks on the little kids because he knows that they aren't big enough to fight back and are easily dominated. Am I off on that assumption? It only seems logical that less gifted athletes are going to suffer a similar fate against the players at the top schools. What's your take? Do you remember guys getting more beat up against Texas A&M, Texas, and Baylor, than against North Texas, UTSA and UTEP?

This is similar to mrbig's post. And it might be anecdotal evidence because it was only a few P5 schools that we played when I was there. But it definitely seemed like there were more injuries and beat up a little bit more against them than the others.

To Antarius...how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences. I'd say Marshall, La Tech, USM, WKU are better than the teams in the WAC and old MWC of those days.

Of course the argument will be "they didn't have UTSA or ODU in their conference"...just because a team hasn't been around long or has a storied history doesn't mean they aren't a competitive, decent team.

I'm not making excuses. I'm trying to recognize the problem and give solutions. All you do is deride anything that's said that you disagree with (because God forbid someone have better insight than you on anything, except maybe the technical aspects of the game) by claiming it's "more mediocrity" or "that will never work". Your only solution is to get a new coach. More times than not, that is not the remedy. Rarely does a coach come in and immediately turn things around. Plus, he has to have the resources to get the people he wants here. Which Rice does not adequately do. There's a reason it's either really young guys or guys in the twilight of their career as coaches.

I'm done with this. I have better things to do with my life than argue the same points over and over. Even if it's sitting in an 8 hour long Saturday law class. I'd rather do that. hahaha.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

(02-20-2016 10:49 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences.

TCU started their upward track same time and in about the same position as Rice--when they were left behind with Rice from the breakup of the SWC. I don't recall Boise taking nearly as long to get going--and once they did they have stayed at or near the top of their potential, with Top 25 rankings almost every season since they first broke through.

Most understand that it takes a while to grow and mature the tree in the grove before it will bear fruit, but you do prune the bad trees and replace them if they only bear fruit for one year or two years. You look for a tree that will bear fruit season after season, like Boise and TCU, not wait ten years for one good harvest and then a bunch of bad apples. You cut that tree down and replace it with a better breed.

(02-20-2016 11:58 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:49 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences.

TCU started their upward track same time and in about the same position as Rice--when they were left behind with Rice from the breakup of the SWC. I don't recall Boise taking nearly as long to get going--and once they did they have stayed at or near the top of their potential, with Top 25 rankings almost every season since they first broke through.

Most understand that it takes a while to grow and mature the tree in the grove before it will bear fruit, but you do prune the bad trees and replace them if they only bear fruit for one year or two years. You look for a tree that will bear fruit season after season, like Boise and TCU, not wait ten years for one good harvest and then a bunch of bad apples. You cut that tree down and replace it with a better breed.

TCU and Boise had (and continue to have) one thing in common that separates them from Rice: institutional commit.

For all the talk about tolerating mediocrity, we sure seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that our institutional support for Football has been historically mediocre...at best.

(02-20-2016 12:12 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 11:58 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:49 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences.

TCU started their upward track same time and in about the same position as Rice--when they were left behind with Rice from the breakup of the SWC. I don't recall Boise taking nearly as long to get going--and once they did they have stayed at or near the top of their potential, with Top 25 rankings almost every season since they first broke through.

Most understand that it takes a while to grow and mature the tree in the grove before it will bear fruit, but you do prune the bad trees and replace them if they only bear fruit for one year or two years. You look for a tree that will bear fruit season after season, like Boise and TCU, not wait ten years for one good harvest and then a bunch of bad apples. You cut that tree down and replace it with a better breed.

TCU and Boise had (and continue to have) one thing in common that separates them from Rice: institutional commit.

For all the talk about tolerating mediocrity, we sure seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that our institutional support for Football has been historically mediocre...at best.

No one here is disagreeing. We definitely need to commit financially to be excellent.

At the same time, where the money needs to go matters. Building a new stadium or EZF isn't going to move the needle much. We need to find a new coach and increasing the salary range will help us get there.

(02-20-2016 12:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:12 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  TCU and Boise had (and continue to have) one thing in common that separates them from Rice: institutional commit.

For all the talk about tolerating mediocrity, we sure seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that our institutional support for Football has been historically mediocre...at best.

No one here is disagreeing. We definitely need to commit financially to be excellent.

At the same time, where the money needs to go matters. Building a new stadium or EZF isn't going to move the needle much. We need to find a new coach and increasing the salary range will help us get there.

I believe I was one of the first to post consistently that the Univ would fare better for the school as well as for football to commit far more financial resources to success on the gridiron, and primarily in being willing to invest at least a few million more per annum in coaching salaries. In the grand scheme of things, it's only a marginal difference for greater than marginal returns that eventually leads the program to require less institutional investment and more self-sustainability.

To be clear, giving Bailiff or his current coaches more salary money is a waste, I agree, and this should not be done. Nor any more extensions. Investing more in coaching realistically only works if you start with a new coach and pay him a nationally competitive salary so you have a chance at coaches we don't even compete for now. The lack of being willing to compete with and for the best is inconsistent with Rice's other endeavors. The reasons still appears to be that those in control fear that the school will lose if people and companies are allowed to freely have a choice of where they can give their money, and perhaps decide to give to football without giving to the university's academic side. I disagree with not allowing that to happen easily if people or companies want to do that.

ETA: corrected to inconsistent in above.

(02-20-2016 12:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:12 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 11:58 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:49 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  how did Boise and TCU get to smash their competition? They didn't automatically start crushing teams. They had a long, protracted course they wanted to take, the school supported them, and not to mention they were both in pretty trash conferences.

TCU started their upward track same time and in about the same position as Rice--when they were left behind with Rice from the breakup of the SWC. I don't recall Boise taking nearly as long to get going--and once they did they have stayed at or near the top of their potential, with Top 25 rankings almost every season since they first broke through.

Most understand that it takes a while to grow and mature the tree in the grove before it will bear fruit, but you do prune the bad trees and replace them if they only bear fruit for one year or two years. You look for a tree that will bear fruit season after season, like Boise and TCU, not wait ten years for one good harvest and then a bunch of bad apples. You cut that tree down and replace it with a better breed.

TCU and Boise had (and continue to have) one thing in common that separates them from Rice: institutional commit.

For all the talk about tolerating mediocrity, we sure seem to conveniently gloss over the fact that our institutional support for Football has been historically mediocre...at best.

No one here is disagreeing. We definitely need to commit financially to be excellent.

At the same time, where the money needs to go matters. Building a new stadium or EZF isn't going to move the needle much. We need to find a new coach and increasing the salary range will help us get there.

This is what will happen the next time Rice hires a new coach.