(10-26-2016 08:18 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote: Lots of good points. But perhaps the most "Rice" post I've ever seen.
I'm going to +1,000 to this, Rick. Outstanding RICE response... and I hope you know i mean that with great respect...
Just wanted to say that upfront as I edit and try and respond (I'm a dumb jock, remember) inline below
(10-26-2016 08:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: Ham,
You asked a specific question: Whether your expectations are unrealistic. I’m not sure I, or anyone can answer that with certainty. I will say that they are potentially achievable and leave it at that.
That (like your post) is what Rice is all about.
Quote:But you've stated that your expectation is competing for a CUSA championship every season. That is, in my estimation, expecting 9 wins a season, year in and year out, every year (the Alabama of CUSA for lack of a better picture).
Weeelll, What I'm really expecting is 7-0 or 6-1 in CUSA West. I think the reality is that 'that team' and 'what we're likely to schedule' means more like 9 wins, but 6-5 COULD win the division and compete for the conference championship.
Quote:But I do want to address the issue of performance expectations in a rational manner.
First, before I start, this discussion is offered up in answer to your question. I am not attempting to apply this to Bailiff or any other coaching staff. I am not defending our current record, which would be on the wrong side of the bell curve, or praise 2008 and 2013 which are on the right side of the bell curve. I am also not offering this up in response to anyone’s feelings on if, when and how our coaching staff should be changed.
Understood
Quote:OK. To discuss expectations, let’s start with a couple of assumptions (this is all obvious, but bear with me):
edited merely for brevity... you're right.
Quote:So I’ll close where I started. Yes, I believe your expectation is achievable.
To do that we need to move as many factors as possible to the right side of the bell curve.
I'm going to disagree on one factor...
The far right of the bell curve for CUSA, say the 98th percentile is somewhere between 50 and 35... which is only around the 65th or so percentile of FBS.... and REALLY, I made the comment because it's the same comment that Bailiff and Kargaard both said was our goal. goal/expectation? I didn't think the distinction was material.
Quote:Assuming that we won’t change our recruiting pool, and that we aren’t going to suddenly develop a 30,000 per game fan base (or find a Fertita who will fund a head coach by his lonesome) . . . . .
For a short period of time, I think an off-the-charts coach and staff (y1 y2) with some successful recruiting (x1 and c), could give us a 3-year run competing for CUSA and winning 10 every year.
I think it would take an upper 99 percentile hire (e.g., Urban Meyer at Utah, Harbaugh at Stanford) not just a very good coach or a 90th percentile coach (Hatfield, based on Air Force, Arkansas, cleaning up Clemson)
So to make it reasonable, we either have to get that Hall of Fame, 99 percentile coach to stay indefinitely, as we did with Wayne Graham, which in turn significantly changed our baseball program’s Z factor,
Or we need to improve our football team’s Z factor (which includes our institution’s ability to hit home runs on every coaching hire).
I really don’t know. Achievable in given year, absolutely, we've done it. Achievable short term, yes but a lot of things need to happen. Potentially achievable year in, year out? See Wayne Graham, so yes, but it means winning the lotto twice.
Reasonable? You tell me.
I'll disagree here as well.
First, I WOULD recruit differently...
Second, CUSA has been won every year of its existence by a coach who made less than $1mm and wasn't Urban Meyer... so I don't know why it would take such a coach now. I think making Rice a destination for coaches is part of the goal. How do we do that? By making Rice stand out from the pack.
The key to dominating CUSA is to take advantage of the ONE thing we have that NOBODY else in CUSA has, and that is a top 20 (or even top 120) University. We don't have to consistently out-recruit UT... We just have to out-recruit UTSA. OF COURSE they will get some guys that we couldn't recruit, but we will also get some guys who wouldn't consider them (academically). So we have to do a better job of identifying and reaching out to those people.
If you don't focus on that group of people... 'people who value education' and sell the hell out of it... then you've got no chance.... because THAT is our niche, and an area where we dominate.... and our facilities and coaches and salaries and everything else isn't nearly as different from the rest of CUSA as our academic rating. I realize there isn't much correlation between academics and athletics, but there also isn't an inverse relationship.
If we spend more money on football, a BUNCH of it should be on expanding our recruiting... and the first thing I"D do is go to the BOT and get their help in this....because ultimately, that means getting a better 'student athlete'. The idea that we can get all the players we need from Texas is an artificial limitation we don't need. That doesn't mean we wouldn't get the majority of them from Texas, but we need to try and poach some guys from KU and Duke and guys who didn't get the 'nod' from Stanford. I'd also work with the Jones school on getting some graduate transfers.
To use your terminology, I'm focusing on the 'x' and hoping to use that built-in recruiting differential to attract better coaches which addresses y and z.
We keep talking about it as a disadvantage... and relative to p5 it is... but relative to g5, it's potentially a difference maker.
Football players aren't that different from anyone else... and if the football quality is even arguably close... I believe that a majority of them would value Rice over UTSA/UTEP/USM/UAB/LaTech and UNT. We only need to identify the best 20 or so a year.
How does Rice get 18,000 applicants for 1000 spaces?
Inherent in the assumption and progression that i made is that we would lose a coach who took us to one or more conference championships and we would have to replace them, and if their replacement significantly regressed, I would replace them before they killed the recruiting goodwill from the championships. Saying it is my expectation/goal to compete for the championship doesn't mean that going 5-2 gets a head coach fired, but it MIGHT mean that some assistants do... I'd ask a coach to defend why he wouldn't replace a coach over an area where we were statistically poor and essentially say... if you keep that coach... fine... your call... but if you stand by him and he doesn't fix it, it MIGHT cost you YOUR job.
The University is our greatest recruiting advantage... why would we not put that front-and-center?