(03-07-2016 09:11 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Can anyone name 3 hall of fame coaches in any sport that "went out on their own terms" and whose fans didn't look back 3-5 years later and say "God, I wish so much he had retired 5 years earlier?"

I quickly googled it because I thought it was an interesting question and came up with at least four:

Walsh, Wooden, La Russa, and Auerbach. Obviously a small fraternity, but potentially not the only four who went out on top.

Knowing when to go is a pretty hard thing to do, and the one thing that I believe all four of those had in common was winning a championship about a year or two before retiring.

(03-07-2016 09:11 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Can anyone name 3 hall of fame coaches in any sport that "went out on their own terms" and whose fans didn't look back 3-5 years later and say "God, I wish so much he had retired 5 years earlier?"

I can tell you that I'll look back on Rice Baseball 3-5 years after Wayne Graham leaves - whenever that is - and say I'm grateful for every minute he spent on campus. I can't possibly tell you - now or then - whether or not the program will have been better off whether that time is now or 8 years from now. I see a number of trends that point to why the situation is as it now is, and the mythical "game has passed him by" is merely one of those.

How many times over the years have people relied on Wayne Graham's judgement not just in directing the baseball program, but providing advice and leadership with regards to football, basketball, and athletic department searches? One thing I trust in is his judgement, and if it were the case that some of the things discussed here - specifically, players not signing because they thought coach Graham wouldn't be here in three years - were a big factor, I'd trust his judgement in making a decision.

I may be risk averse, but I don't see a compelling reason that another coach could step in and immediately change results given the conference that Rice is in and the growing strength of other programs in the area. Note that A$M and TCU have both dramatically improved their attractiveness by way of conference affiliation and UH, ULaLa have improved their programs to consistent top-20 caliber. Rice is a tougher sell than it was 10 years ago, and it's remarkable that they have both kept the streak of conference championships going and remained in contention for CWS spots.

(03-02-2016 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 08:53 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:48 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:07 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Again, we were dominant in the 2000s. You're telling me the advantage gained from that lasted a couple years into the 2010s, and has already dissipated. You're not making a strong case that "reputation is everything".

Seven seasons since we have won a super regional game or been to the CWS. More than just a "couple years". In the 2000s, down seasons were when we didn't make it to Omaha. Now they are when we don't make it out of a regional. I can only assume the pattern will continue, and our down seasons will be when we fail to win conference or make the NCAA tournament. As many have said with regard to other sports at Rice, complacency is brought on by slowly ratcheting down your expectations until you feel good about the current state of the program. Make no mistake, college athletics has become a business (as is evidenced by exorbitant salaries in football and men's basketball). If a business underperforms, people will begin to question the direction of said business and look to make changes or remove their dollars to alternative investments (such as our tennis programs, which seem to be on the uptick).

I didn't say it's been couple years since we were dominant, I said the purported recruiting benefits of our decade of dominance lasted only a couple years. While the teams we were dominating turned it around despite having been our doormats. Again, does not support the "reputation is everything" argument. Supports the reverse, in fact.

I would assume that a lot of those teams who went from doormats to elite did something that spurred that change. I doubt it was just the same coach working a little harder. I would imagine it was either a coaching change (new blood/philosophy), an increase in funding from the school (better equipment, facilities), or a change in philosophy about supporting students with academic scholarships. It was likely all three of those for most cases.

But if you look at Rice, we have rested on our laurels in regards to supporting the team (obviously resting on them with regards to coaching). I think we are just now seeing the issues with the scholarships that apparently Wayne has discussed in length, and despite having good facilities, are now loosing that arms race.

An interesting case study is the rise of UVA baseball that was resurrected by John Grisham's funding of a brand new stadium and the stepping down of an institutional coach a bit after their palace was built.

Also, I know Graham loves to recruit locally because the talent is said to be so great, but is there more to that story? Do we stay mainly in Texas because of recruiting constraints?

All this would be fine if we were playing good ball but just weren't good enough to compete. Like if Navy in football played a great game but got out muscled by Alabama.

Facilities, scholarships, stadiums don't explain our little league quality fielding. The fundamentals need to be fixed, then the discussion can turn to Reckling and scholarships.

(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 08:53 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:48 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:07 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Again, we were dominant in the 2000s. You're telling me the advantage gained from that lasted a couple years into the 2010s, and has already dissipated. You're not making a strong case that "reputation is everything".

Seven seasons since we have won a super regional game or been to the CWS. More than just a "couple years". In the 2000s, down seasons were when we didn't make it to Omaha. Now they are when we don't make it out of a regional. I can only assume the pattern will continue, and our down seasons will be when we fail to win conference or make the NCAA tournament. As many have said with regard to other sports at Rice, complacency is brought on by slowly ratcheting down your expectations until you feel good about the current state of the program. Make no mistake, college athletics has become a business (as is evidenced by exorbitant salaries in football and men's basketball). If a business underperforms, people will begin to question the direction of said business and look to make changes or remove their dollars to alternative investments (such as our tennis programs, which seem to be on the uptick).

I didn't say it's been couple years since we were dominant, I said the purported recruiting benefits of our decade of dominance lasted only a couple years. While the teams we were dominating turned it around despite having been our doormats. Again, does not support the "reputation is everything" argument. Supports the reverse, in fact.

I would assume that a lot of those teams who went from doormats to elite did something that spurred that change. I doubt it was just the same coach working a little harder. I would imagine it was either a coaching change (new blood/philosophy), an increase in funding from the school (better equipment, facilities), or a change in philosophy about supporting students with academic scholarships. It was likely all three of those for most cases.

But if you look at Rice, we have rested on our laurels in regards to supporting the team (obviously resting on them with regards to coaching). I think we are just now seeing the issues with the scholarships that apparently Wayne has discussed in length, and despite having good facilities, are now loosing that arms race.

An interesting case study is the rise of UVA baseball that was resurrected by John Grisham's funding of a brand new stadium and the stepping down of an institutional coach a bit after their palace was built.

Also, I know Graham loves to recruit locally because the talent is said to be so great, but is there more to that story? Do we stay mainly in Texas because of recruiting constraints?

All this would be fine if we were playing good ball but just weren't good enough to compete. Like if Navy in football played a great game but got out muscled by Alabama.

Facilities, scholarships, stadiums don't explain our little league quality fielding. The fundamentals need to be fixed, then the discussion can turn to Reckling and scholarships.

There has to be some correlation between quality of play and quality of recruit. Coaching obviously has some effect, but God-given talent is another aspect.

We have, in the recent past, seen plenty of freshmen come in and compete at a very high level, which obviously has little to do with the coaches since those players do not have a lot of time practicing with those coaches by their freshman year.

Do you think it is truly just coaching that has caused the other schools like TCU to pass us recently? Like I said, the other schools likely had a combination of three things, coaching, funding, schollies, that have allowed them to succeed.

Likewise, I do not think it is just coaching that has caused us to slip. And if I had to pick which of those three to fix first at Rice, I'd pick the low hanging fruit of facilities and scholarships given Graham's track record since he came to Rice - unless he felt that he needed more money for different assistant coaches.

(03-07-2016 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 08:53 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 12:48 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Seven seasons since we have won a super regional game or been to the CWS. More than just a "couple years". In the 2000s, down seasons were when we didn't make it to Omaha. Now they are when we don't make it out of a regional. I can only assume the pattern will continue, and our down seasons will be when we fail to win conference or make the NCAA tournament. As many have said with regard to other sports at Rice, complacency is brought on by slowly ratcheting down your expectations until you feel good about the current state of the program. Make no mistake, college athletics has become a business (as is evidenced by exorbitant salaries in football and men's basketball). If a business underperforms, people will begin to question the direction of said business and look to make changes or remove their dollars to alternative investments (such as our tennis programs, which seem to be on the uptick).

I didn't say it's been couple years since we were dominant, I said the purported recruiting benefits of our decade of dominance lasted only a couple years. While the teams we were dominating turned it around despite having been our doormats. Again, does not support the "reputation is everything" argument. Supports the reverse, in fact.

I would assume that a lot of those teams who went from doormats to elite did something that spurred that change. I doubt it was just the same coach working a little harder. I would imagine it was either a coaching change (new blood/philosophy), an increase in funding from the school (better equipment, facilities), or a change in philosophy about supporting students with academic scholarships. It was likely all three of those for most cases.

But if you look at Rice, we have rested on our laurels in regards to supporting the team (obviously resting on them with regards to coaching). I think we are just now seeing the issues with the scholarships that apparently Wayne has discussed in length, and despite having good facilities, are now loosing that arms race.

An interesting case study is the rise of UVA baseball that was resurrected by John Grisham's funding of a brand new stadium and the stepping down of an institutional coach a bit after their palace was built.

Also, I know Graham loves to recruit locally because the talent is said to be so great, but is there more to that story? Do we stay mainly in Texas because of recruiting constraints?

All this would be fine if we were playing good ball but just weren't good enough to compete. Like if Navy in football played a great game but got out muscled by Alabama.

Facilities, scholarships, stadiums don't explain our little league quality fielding. The fundamentals need to be fixed, then the discussion can turn to Reckling and scholarships.

There has to be some correlation between quality of play and quality of recruit. Coaching obviously has some effect, but God-given talent is another aspect.

We have, in the recent past, seen plenty of freshmen come in and compete at a very high level, which obviously has little to do with the coaches since those players do not have a lot of time practicing with those coaches by their freshman year.

Do you think it is truly just coaching that has caused the other schools like TCU to pass us recently? Like I said, the other schools likely had a combination of three things, coaching, funding, schollies, that have allowed them to succeed.

Likewise, I do not think it is just coaching that has caused us to slip. And if I had to pick which of those three to fix first at Rice, I'd pick the low hanging fruit of facilities and scholarships given Graham's track record since he came to Rice - unless he felt that he needed more money for different assistant coaches.

there is definitely a correlation between quality of play and quality of recruit. That said, to your bolded point, it doesn't really matter whether you have a 2 start recruit or a 5 star recruit if their fundamentals aren't solid. The problem we have now is we are playing defense at a level so far below what one would expect from Division 1.

The issue I have here is this: If I bought a Tour level carbon fiber bike, would it help my ride time - sure. But training, endurance, practice, technique etc. are far more important than a 15lb bicycle. Once I get those in place and I am competing at the top of my ability, shaving weight off the bicycle helps. We keep chasing the incremental gain through facilities and the likes when the bigger issue is basic fundamental play. Given that this is now a multi-year trend, it is concerning.

Rice needs to stop being the guy that just gets into golf and drops a grand on a set of clubs. Yes there are others who drop 2 grand and even 3 grand, but that doesn't make them any better at playing golf.

(03-07-2016 11:36 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 11:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-07-2016 10:13 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 08:53 AM)JOwl Wrote:  I didn't say it's been couple years since we were dominant, I said the purported recruiting benefits of our decade of dominance lasted only a couple years. While the teams we were dominating turned it around despite having been our doormats. Again, does not support the "reputation is everything" argument. Supports the reverse, in fact.

I would assume that a lot of those teams who went from doormats to elite did something that spurred that change. I doubt it was just the same coach working a little harder. I would imagine it was either a coaching change (new blood/philosophy), an increase in funding from the school (better equipment, facilities), or a change in philosophy about supporting students with academic scholarships. It was likely all three of those for most cases.

But if you look at Rice, we have rested on our laurels in regards to supporting the team (obviously resting on them with regards to coaching). I think we are just now seeing the issues with the scholarships that apparently Wayne has discussed in length, and despite having good facilities, are now loosing that arms race.

An interesting case study is the rise of UVA baseball that was resurrected by John Grisham's funding of a brand new stadium and the stepping down of an institutional coach a bit after their palace was built.

Also, I know Graham loves to recruit locally because the talent is said to be so great, but is there more to that story? Do we stay mainly in Texas because of recruiting constraints?

All this would be fine if we were playing good ball but just weren't good enough to compete. Like if Navy in football played a great game but got out muscled by Alabama.

Facilities, scholarships, stadiums don't explain our little league quality fielding. The fundamentals need to be fixed, then the discussion can turn to Reckling and scholarships.

There has to be some correlation between quality of play and quality of recruit. Coaching obviously has some effect, but God-given talent is another aspect.

We have, in the recent past, seen plenty of freshmen come in and compete at a very high level, which obviously has little to do with the coaches since those players do not have a lot of time practicing with those coaches by their freshman year.

Do you think it is truly just coaching that has caused the other schools like TCU to pass us recently? Like I said, the other schools likely had a combination of three things, coaching, funding, schollies, that have allowed them to succeed.

Likewise, I do not think it is just coaching that has caused us to slip. And if I had to pick which of those three to fix first at Rice, I'd pick the low hanging fruit of facilities and scholarships given Graham's track record since he came to Rice - unless he felt that he needed more money for different assistant coaches.

there is definitely a correlation between quality of play and quality of recruit. That said, to your bolded point, it doesn't really matter whether you have a 2 start recruit or a 5 star recruit if their fundamentals aren't solid. The problem we have now is we are playing defense at a level so far below what one would expect from Division 1.

The issue I have here is this: If I bought a Tour level carbon fiber bike, would it help my ride time - sure. But training, endurance, practice, technique etc. are far more important than a 15lb bicycle.

We keep chasing the incremental gain through facilities and the likes when the bigger issue is basic fundamental play. Given that this is now a multi-year trend, it is concerning.

Agreed - but as I said, unless Wayne felt coaching was the biggest factor, I would trust in him and fix the other problems first.

What you are discounting though, is that with increased recruiting, you get better players to play, or better riders to ride that bike. For example, it isn't as if Rendon regressed while at Rice. I think we just haven't had someone close to Rendon caliber come in as a fielder to Rice in a while.

I think the chance of recruiting Rendon-like player is greater if we invest in facilities and scholarships than it is to build up lower ceiling players with a coaching change. You have more variables with the latter - you have to hire a new coach who is better and you have to recruit kids who can learn and grow.

But again, if Wayne wants new coaches, then go there first. But everything I've heard seems to indicate he doesn't.

(02-29-2016 09:13 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 11:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 11:15 AM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm more concerned by the fact that we are playing undisciplined baseball. The fielding over the past few years has been ghastly; ...

... The number of errors we are seeing in baseball is horrendous. Last time I checked we are worse than 250th in the country for fielding and that was before our midweek debacles (another 5 errors).

Indeed, those midweek debacles plunged the Owls down to 263rd in the NCAA D1 fielding percentage ranking (15 errors/0.923 fielding percentage). Only two teams had more errors: Stephen F. Austin (16 errors/0.923/264th) and Mississippi Valley State (23/0.896/272nd - last).

But despite the three loses this weekend, our team's 2-error weekend brought their ranking up to 250th.

Now 17 teams have 17 or more errors; 13 of them with 18 or more. Mississippi Valley State still has the most errors (27/0.912/286th), but Central Michigan has descended to the bottom spot (287th) in fielding percentage, with 23 errors but a 0.909 percentage.

(It seems that the NCAA now has data on 15 more teams this week: 287 vs. 272 on last Thursday.)

Lehigh is the only team without an error, but they've played only three games -- a weekend sweep over Norfolk State.

Arkansas, Stanford, Florida Atlantic, Duke, Louisville & Arizona all have just 3 errors, and are ranked 5-10 in fielding percentage (0.991 - 0.988).

Another better-than-our-average 2-error weekend pushed Rice up from 255th (0.945 fielding percentage) to 241st (21 errors/0.953) in the NCAA's D-1 fielding percentage ranking, which now includes 294 teams.

Some 27 teams now have more errors than we do. (Alabama A&M has 36 errors (291st/0.927) and Mississippi Valley St. has 35 (294th/0.923).

At the top are Columbia, Brown and Yale, each having committed only one error this season. (But they've played only 3 games so far.) Stanford is 4th, with only five errors in 12 games (0.989).