Quote:evidence to suggest our coaches are not correctly assessing who the best player is at a given position and who gives us the best chance at winning ball games.
2. I've never seen evidence that we would play anyone 'because it is his turn'. We have a freshman running back getting significant time this year, as yet another example disproving the supposition. Our best players (Gaines, Callahan, Covington, Dillard, etc, etc,) all started well before their senior year.

Why is Stehling playing in the end of a blowout? Why was DJ in at the end of the Wagner game?

Bailiff incorrectly assesses the long game. So yes, he may play theperson who gives the best chance AT THAT MOMENT but sabotages the long term prospects by incorrectly playing the best player long term.

(09-18-2016 08:23 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:evidence to suggest our coaches are not correctly assessing who the best player is at a given position and who gives us the best chance at winning ball games.
2. I've never seen evidence that we would play anyone 'because it is his turn'. We have a freshman running back getting significant time this year, as yet another example disproving the supposition. Our best players (Gaines, Callahan, Covington, Dillard, etc, etc,) all started well before their senior year.

Why is Stehling playing in the end of a blowout? Why was DJ in at the end of the Wagner game?

Bailiff incorrectly assesses the long game. So yes, he may play theperson who gives the best chance AT THAT MOMENT but sabotages the long term prospects by incorrectly playing the best player long term.

That's your opinion. I don't agree with it. I don't think you are in any position to know who he should be playing, and I certainly wouldn't put any stock in your (or my for that matter) opinions on the matter. There will be times playing time decisions could go in a different direction, and they do make mistakes, but by and large the coaches have a much better idea of what is going on because they're with the whole team every day.

Generally speaking, the vast majority of the times that fans are calling for a change in who is playing at a given position (and that position is almost always a visible one, and usually at QB, not the offensive line for example), if their wish were rewarded the outcome would be a net negative.

But you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect everyone else to treat it as a fact.

(09-17-2016 06:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2016 03:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-17-2016 10:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2016 10:15 AM)wrysal Wrote:  

(09-17-2016 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That was THIS year? I thought JK meant eventually.

I understood the team goals to be winning the conference and going to a bowl. Was going undefeated one, also?

Seriously, what were the team goals? Were they ever enunciated where we can read them? Sure it is a technicality, but it is an election year, so technicalities abound.

When I played we had team goals that weren't necessarily shared with alumni and fans. I doubt if our goals included getting absolutely embarrassed in our first conference game, losing badly to Army for the first time since 1958 (a team outside the Top 100), and once again turning off any new potential fans with a completely uninspiring (offensively, anyway) 28-point home loss to Baylor. Actually our defense (630 yards allowed) and special teams were pretty putrid, too.

i doubt any of the bolded were team goals in 2016, either. But what Bailiff said was the goals were intact, not that any had been achieved.

I am presuming the goals he referred to were (a) to win the conference, and (b) to go to a bowl. It could be the goal was merely to win the division.

While it is unlikely that any of those goals will be attained, at this point they are still attainable, and thus intact.

But I will ask again, what team goals that were set before this season are now unattainable?

Top 25. As stated by the AD

Is that the team's goal for this season or the AD's goal to eventually get there?

Starting this year?

If I understood JK right when he said it, it was HIS goal, not a team goal, and it was a goal to reach at some some point in the future, not neccesarily this year.

But if it was a team goal for this year, I would like to add undefeated and unscored upon to the list of realistic goals. That's MY goal, but since they all count...

For a bunch of guys who think realism is the opposite of optimism, do you think top 25 was a realistic goal at the start of the year? I don't even think a goal of a conference championship was realistic, and how so many of you can predict 4-8 or 5-7 and hold a top25 as a realistic goal is beyond me.

I think this is just more desire to bash anything Bailiff says.

I agree, though, he would have be better off saying we still have a chance at a conference championship and a bowl, rather than "our goals are still intact".

Based on this discussion of rankings, it doesn't appear as if many have listened to Dr. K's most recent podcast, where he discussed this very topic. It is clear that he, or others in the AD, read the Parliament, as when JP broached this subject, he said it "has been the topic of a lot of discussion".

Dr. K reaffirmed that his goals for all sports are conference championships. However, it appears as if he walked back his Top 25 comment a bit. Rather than saying that Top 25 is a goal for all sports, he said it was a goal for those sports - like baseball and women's tennis - who have consistently been ranked. My recollection of his statement and wording may be off, as I listened to it a few days ago. But I believe that was the gist. If someone has a better word for word recollection/understanding/post, please feel free to post.

(09-19-2016 10:45 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  Based on this discussion of rankings, it doesn't appear as if many have listened to Dr. K's most recent podcast, where he discussed this very topic. It is clear that he, or others in the AD, read the Parliament, as when JP broached this subject, he said it "has been the topic of a lot of discussion".

Dr. K reaffirmed that his goals for all sports are conference championships. However, it appears as if he walked back his Top 25 comment a bit. Rather than saying that Top 25 is a goal for all sports, he said it was a goal for those sports - like baseball and women's tennis - who have consistently been ranked. My recollection of his statement and wording may be off, as I listened to it a few days ago. But I believe that was the gist. If someone has a better word for word recollection/understanding/post, please feel free to post.

I noticed this as well. Here's what Joe Karlgaard said during the most recent podcast:

Joe Karlgaard Wrote:Well as I've said, I think a number of times, our goal is to win conference championships. There's a top-25 component to that too that some people fixate on. You know, I have always said its conference championships and/or top 25 finishes. And the reason for that is, I don't know that for our baseball program or our women's tennis program that winning a conference championship is actually the prime goal for those programs since they've won a number of them in the last several years. But for most of our programs, it's about trying to win a conference championship.

I think he's responding to a bastardization of what was said about football.

The comment about football was by both dr K and Bailiff (paraphrasing) that we needed to knock off/put a real scare into one of these top 25 teams, not that we needed to be top 25 ourselves.

I think top 25 in football is possible, but would take a serendipitous alignment.

You generally won't make top 25 from going undefeated in CUSA because usually almost nobody in CUSA would justify that ranking... especially in that CUSA teams similarly only have a few chances to prove their worth, and one of them was against us and under this scenario, they lost.... but if in addition to THAT, you beat an OOC p5 top 50 and then played well against a top 15 team or perhaps two, you're there... even though you may really be far outmatched.

Top 25 in baseball is a disappointing season... and also de rigeur in many other sports. 'Winning Championships' fits all sports.

The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more regularly/frequently.

(09-20-2016 03:58 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more regularly/frequently.

I think that is right. This is Dr. K's Mission Statement for Rice Athletics released in July 2014. In his first pillar, "Athletic Competitiveness", he states "Our goal is to win conference championships and achieve Top 25 national rankings in each of our 16 sports." I didn't take that to mean every year, either I took that pronouncement as setting the barometer for success in all sports.

We are only two seasons (and change) from winning CUSA in football. I think the frustrating aspect for many is that we haven't built off of that - we seem to be regressing, and not moving close to either another conference championship or national ranking. I know Dr. K. tried to walk this expectation back a bit in his podcast, but in the video there wasn't an "and/or" component to it as he claimed in his podcast.

(09-20-2016 05:29 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 03:58 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more regularly/frequently.

I think that is right. This is Dr. K's Mission Statement for Rice Athletics released in July 2014. In his first pillar, "Athletic Competitiveness", he states "Our goal is to win conference championships and achieve Top 25 national rankings in each of our 16 sports." I didn't take that to mean every year, either I took that pronouncement as setting the barometer for success in all sports.

We are only two seasons (and change) from winning CUSA in football. I think the frustrating aspect for many is that we haven't built off of that - we seem to be regressing, and not moving close to either another conference championship or national ranking. I know Dr. K. tried to walk this expectation back a bit in his podcast, but in the video there wasn't an "and/or" component to it as he claimed in his podcast.

Which is why I've said that, for me (I know this isn't everyone's opinion), if Rice were to perpetually cycle through seasons like 2012-2015, with bowl appearances 3 out of 4 years and one year at the "10-win or better/compete for conference championship level, I could deal with that.

Whether that can be done remains to be seen obviously. It would match Jess Neely's reign during the 1950's

(09-20-2016 07:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 05:29 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  [quote='Tomball Owl' pid='13594929' dateline='1474405139']
The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more

I think that is right. This is Dr. K's Mission Statement for Rice Athletics released in July 2014. In his first pillar, "Athletic Competitiveness", he states "Our goal is to win conference championships and achieve Top 25 national rankings in each of our 16 sports." I didn't take that to mean every year, either I took that pronouncement as setting the barometer for success in all sports.

We are only two seasons (and change) from winning CUSA in football. I think the frustrating aspect for many is that we haven't built off of that - we seem to be regressing, and not moving close to either another conference championship or national ranking. I know Dr. K. tried to walk this expectation back a bit in his podcast, but in the video there wasn't an "and/or" component to it as he claimed in his podcast.

Which is why I've said that, for me (I know this isn't everyone's opinion), if Rice were to perpetually cycle through seasons like 2012-2015, with bowl appearances 3 out of 4 years and one year at the "10-win or better/compete for conference championship level, I could deal with that.

Whether that can be done remains to be seen obviously. It would match Jess Neely's reign during the 1950's

This would mean we PEAK at 60 something out of 120 something teams.

A far cry from Neely's bigger dealing wins and seasons.

(09-20-2016 07:30 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 07:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 05:29 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  [quote='Tomball Owl' pid='13594929' dateline='1474405139']
The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more

I think that is right. This is Dr. K's Mission Statement for Rice Athletics released in July 2014. In his first pillar, "Athletic Competitiveness", he states "Our goal is to win conference championships and achieve Top 25 national rankings in each of our 16 sports." I didn't take that to mean every year, either I took that pronouncement as setting the barometer for success in all sports.

We are only two seasons (and change) from winning CUSA in football. I think the frustrating aspect for many is that we haven't built off of that - we seem to be regressing, and not moving close to either another conference championship or national ranking. I know Dr. K. tried to walk this expectation back a bit in his podcast, but in the video there wasn't an "and/or" component to it as he claimed in his podcast.

Which is why I've said that, for me (I know this isn't everyone's opinion), if Rice were to perpetually cycle through seasons like 2012-2015, with bowl appearances 3 out of 4 years and one year at the "10-win or better/compete for conference championship level, I could deal with that.

Whether that can be done remains to be seen obviously. It would match Jess Neely's reign during the 1950's

This would mean we PEAK at 60 something out of 120 something teams.

A far cry from Neely's bigger dealing wins and seasons.

Probably mostly correct. Potentially we could break into Top 50, or pull a 12 win season (think Tulane's undefeated regular season from a few years back), but that would be like Neely's 1949 year, which was his best.

A Top 25 ranking would be possible in that scenario (assume that by Top 50, you're referring to computer ranking, which would differ from an AP vote), but would take the right OOC schedule with one or two P5 wins.

That is life in the G5 unfortunately.

I acknowledge that you, among others, want a more 'Boise-like' run, albeit under recruiting conditions that don't match Boise's.

(09-20-2016 07:30 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 07:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 05:29 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  [quote='Tomball Owl' pid='13594929' dateline='1474405139']
The first time I heard JK speak (in the R Room to Owl Club members, a few months after he arrived on campus) he made a statement that he expected all Rice teams to make the top 25 in their respective sport. I took that not necessarily to mean every sport, every year, although that would be the minimum expectation for baseball, but that he expected the Owl teams to be competitive enough that we could crack the top 25 at least every now and then. I'd take that. Of course, once that goal is reached, then the goal is extended to do it more

I think that is right. This is Dr. K's Mission Statement for Rice Athletics released in July 2014. In his first pillar, "Athletic Competitiveness", he states "Our goal is to win conference championships and achieve Top 25 national rankings in each of our 16 sports." I didn't take that to mean every year, either I took that pronouncement as setting the barometer for success in all sports.

We are only two seasons (and change) from winning CUSA in football. I think the frustrating aspect for many is that we haven't built off of that - we seem to be regressing, and not moving close to either another conference championship or national ranking. I know Dr. K. tried to walk this expectation back a bit in his podcast, but in the video there wasn't an "and/or" component to it as he claimed in his podcast.

Which is why I've said that, for me (I know this isn't everyone's opinion), if Rice were to perpetually cycle through seasons like 2012-2015, with bowl appearances 3 out of 4 years and one year at the "10-win or better/compete for conference championship level, I could deal with that.

Whether that can be done remains to be seen obviously. It would match Jess Neely's reign during the 1950's

This would mean we PEAK at 60 something out of 120 something teams.

A far cry from Neely's bigger dealing wins and seasons.

Probably mostly correct. Potentially we could break into Top 50, or pull a 12 win season (think Tulane's undefeated regular season from a few years back), but that would be like Neely's 1949 year, which was his best.

A Top 25 ranking would be possible in that scenario, but would take the right OOC schedule with one or two P5 wins.

That is life in the G5 unfortunately.

I acknowledge that you, among others, want a more 'Boise-like' run, albeit under recruiting conditions that don't match Boise's.

We are 0-3 with none of the opponents being great and none of the games being close. I am not at all a fan of Bailiff's (characteristic) attempt to sugarcoat that. But Top 25 in football is a long-term goal. Nobody thought we were going to jump from 5-7 against a weak schedule last year to top 25 this year.

Rice has a small (and aging) fanbase and is in one of the weakest conferences. Fixing this program, if that is even possible, is likely to be a slow process with disappointments along the way. With that in mind I agree with Rick that a repeat of the 2012-2015 cycle would not be a bad thing. The problem is that 2012-2014 is now looking less like part of a 4-year cycle and more like a Phillip Gaines-inspired anomaly (which was always a concern, even when people were complaining about a supposed "plateau").

Now I'll go back into my cave.

(09-20-2016 10:44 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  We are 0-3 with none of the opponents being great and none of the games being close. I am not at all a fan of Bailiff's (characteristic) attempt to sugarcoat that. But Top 25 in football is a long-term goal. Nobody thought we were going to jump from 5-7 against a weak schedule last year to top 25 this year.

Rice has a small (and aging) fanbase and is in one of the weakest conferences. Fixing this program, if that is even possible, is likely to be a slow process with disappointments along the way. With that in mind I agree with Rick that a repeat of the 2012-2015 cycle would not be a bad thing. The problem is that 2012-2014 is now looking less like part of a 4-year cycle and more like a Phillip Gaines-inspired anomaly (which was always a concern, even when people were complaining about a supposed "plateau").

Now I'll go back into my cave.

I agree with your second to last sentence, but would add some of Gaines' teammates to the inspiration.

The start of 2016 is starting to look very similar to the start of 2012.

Two thoughts.

1. Seasons that start like 2012 rarely end the way that season ended. (It's never good to work yourself into a deep hole.)

2. It is still reasonable for this team to finish 2016 like 2012.

Reasonable and likely are not synonymous. As always, I will remain an optimist until proven otherwise.

I hope this season ends like 2012. But unless there is some really miraculous turnaround and we end more like 2008, we will have a new head coach next year.

(09-20-2016 11:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I hope this season ends like 2012. But unless there is some really miraculous turnaround and we end more like 2008, we will have a new head coach next year.

2008 was great. We won the Texas Bowl that year, which would be an absolute coup to repeat since that game is now XII/SEC. I think you mean 2009, when we finished 2-10.

(09-21-2016 09:33 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  

(09-20-2016 11:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I hope this season ends like 2012. But unless there is some really miraculous turnaround and we end more like 2008, we will have a new head coach next year.

2008 was great. We won the Texas Bowl that year, which would be an absolute coup to repeat since that game is now XII/SEC. I think you mean 2009, when we finished 2-10.

No, he meant 2008. In that, "unless this turns into 2008, Bailiff gets fired."