http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2017...mediocrity

Good article. Same student that called for Bailiff's firing in early October.

http://www.ricethresher.org/article/2016...utal-start

Very good article. But, as with many a discussion herein, these points are well known and apparently fall on deaf ears. Will the Bailiff supporters respond? Or will the article be ignored, just like all our posts?

Do we still actually have Bailiff supporters?

(01-12-2017 10:58 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  Do we still actually have Bailiff supporters?

Amazingly, quite a few.

perhaps the question to be posed is do we have Rice football supporters? In the early to mid 90's, I would say yes, some. Next year will be very difficult for Tanner, Shu and the whole ticket/revenue team.

Was talking to an Aggie acquaintance of my dad's after a meeting. Asked him when he graduated (78) and talked about how they had turned it around with Emory Bellard, that great, but choking 76 team and the old SWC days. Talked a bit about the straits conference and otherwise we were in. He said it was real simple-Rice did not decide to spend the money and make the effort like Duke and Stanford and that there was no excuse for the situation, not lack of alumni, not the pro teams, simply didn't decide to make it happen. I did not encourage his comments whatsoever. But I think it is apparent what the world outside the hedges sees and thinks, if they even notice at all. And nothing but publicity from the red side of town. Marketing, marketing, and noise makes all the difference even if if is not always positive.

Rice -- writ large; i.e., the sum of its students, alumni, faculty, administration, BOT, etc. -- does not want to have a P5 football program. End of story.

I do. Others do. But too many others don't, or don't think that fits with (their conception of) Rice's mission, or don't really care, or think it's beyond our ability to change, or don't believe in athletics in general, or think it would be too expensive a proposition to try and really go after, or deludedly believe the half-measures and lip service we have been engaged in will someday be effective, or really would rather win more at this level than win less at that level, or whatever else.

Only a concerted, sustained leadership effort to change hearts and minds could possibly change this reality. But we clearly do not have anyone in either Lovett Hall, the AD's chair, or in the alumni ranks willing or able to lead on this issue.

And thus, the retention of Bailiff makes perfect sense. If Rice truly wanted to rejoin P5, much less with any semblance of intentionality and urgency, he would have been fired, probably long before now. But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

(01-21-2017 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Rice -- writ large; i.e., the sum of its students, alumni, faculty, administration, BOT, etc. -- does not want to have a P5 football program. End of story.

I do. Others do. But too many others don't, or don't think that fits with (their conception of) Rice's mission, or don't really care, or think it's beyond our ability to change, or don't believe in athletics in general, or think it would be too expensive a proposition to try and really go after, or deludedly believe the half-measures and lip service we have been engaged in will someday be effective, or really would rather win more at this level than win less at that level, or whatever else.

Only a concerted, sustained leadership effort to change hearts and minds could possibly change this reality. But we clearly do not have anyone in either Lovett Hall, the AD's chair, or in the alumni ranks willing or able to lead on this issue.

And thus, the retention of Bailiff makes perfect sense. If Rice truly wanted to rejoin P5, much less with any semblance of intentionality and urgency, he would have been fired, probably long before now. But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

"is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

"is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

(01-21-2017 05:33 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  "is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

Eh, it was likely JK's decision to keep Bailiff. And make no mistake, it has at least shocked and/or angered both current and former players. JK has tied his reputation to the success of our basketball programs, plain and simple. Football ticket sales will undoubtedly fall this upcoming fall and the baseball is in a nice, steady decline towards a 3 seed in a regional, despite the efforts of people to mollify the relatively poor results over the last 5-10 years.

(01-21-2017 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

So if we are tied with La Tech in the 2nd quarter once every four years, before going on to lose by 4+ touchdowns, we are decisively uncompetitive but not embarrassingly so.

Just want to make sure I've got the calibration right.

(01-22-2017 12:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 05:33 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  "is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

Eh, it was likely JK's decision to keep Bailiff. And make no mistake, it has at least shocked and/or angered both current and former players. JK has tied his reputation to the success of our basketball programs, plain and simple. Football ticket sales will undoubtedly fall this upcoming fall and the baseball is in a nice, steady decline towards a 3 seed in a regional, despite the efforts of people to mollify the relatively poor results over the last 5-10 years.

You have got to be kidding. "Relatively poor results"? In the post-season, yes, but not overall. Yes, we've slipped from Top 10 - 15, to Top 15 - 25 (out of 325 D-1 baseball programs), but to call that relatively poor results is as ridiculous as it is demeaning.

(01-22-2017 08:39 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 05:33 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  "is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

Eh, it was likely JK's decision to keep Bailiff. And make no mistake, it has at least shocked and/or angered both current and former players. JK has tied his reputation to the success of our basketball programs, plain and simple. Football ticket sales will undoubtedly fall this upcoming fall and the baseball is in a nice, steady decline towards a 3 seed in a regional, despite the efforts of people to mollify the relatively poor results over the last 5-10 years.

You have got to be kidding. "Relatively poor results"? In the post-season, yes, but not overall. Yes, we've slipped from Top 10 - 15, to Top 15 - 25 (out of 325 D-1 baseball programs), but to call that relatively poor results is as ridiculous as it is demeaning.

To be fair, the term relatively poor is probably best. It is poor RELATIVE to the quality we had seen.

Now if he had said absolutely poor, then you're on to something.

(01-22-2017 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:39 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 05:33 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  "is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

Eh, it was likely JK's decision to keep Bailiff. And make no mistake, it has at least shocked and/or angered both current and former players. JK has tied his reputation to the success of our basketball programs, plain and simple. Football ticket sales will undoubtedly fall this upcoming fall and the baseball is in a nice, steady decline towards a 3 seed in a regional, despite the efforts of people to mollify the relatively poor results over the last 5-10 years.

You have got to be kidding. "Relatively poor results"? In the post-season, yes, but not overall. Yes, we've slipped from Top 10 - 15, to Top 15 - 25 (out of 325 D-1 baseball programs), but to call that relatively poor results is as ridiculous as it is demeaning.

To be fair, the term relatively poor is probably best. It is poor RELATIVE to the quality we had seen.

Now if he had said absolutely poor, then you're on to something.

To me "poor"is a bit harsh. A tiger mom might feel an A- is "poor" relative to an A+, but its still damn good, IMHO

(01-22-2017 01:41 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 08:39 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:29 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 05:33 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  "is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis" is a depressingly low bar, but I'm afraid you are right.

Well I guess that we were fooled with JK, but it is clear to me that this is Leebron's and the BOT's goal and we have barely succeeded. At one time in the 90's, I would have said that we almost turned the corner, but my optimism is waning.

Eh, it was likely JK's decision to keep Bailiff. And make no mistake, it has at least shocked and/or angered both current and former players. JK has tied his reputation to the success of our basketball programs, plain and simple. Football ticket sales will undoubtedly fall this upcoming fall and the baseball is in a nice, steady decline towards a 3 seed in a regional, despite the efforts of people to mollify the relatively poor results over the last 5-10 years.

You have got to be kidding. "Relatively poor results"? In the post-season, yes, but not overall. Yes, we've slipped from Top 10 - 15, to Top 15 - 25 (out of 325 D-1 baseball programs), but to call that relatively poor results is as ridiculous as it is demeaning.

To be fair, the term relatively poor is probably best. It is poor RELATIVE to the quality we had seen.

Now if he had said absolutely poor, then you're on to something.

To me "poor"is a bit harsh. A tiger mom might feel an A- is "poor" relative to an A+, but its still damn good, IMHO

Yeah, I was just having fun with being pedantic.

(01-22-2017 12:54 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

So if we are tied with La Tech in the 2nd quarter once every four years, before going on to lose by 4+ touchdowns, we are decisively uncompetitive but not embarrassingly so.

Just want to make sure I've got the calibration right.

That sort of thing would matter if La. Tech were an important rivalry game. Otherwise successful coaches might get canned for repeatedly getting blown out in the big rivalry game.

Ahhh, rivalry games . . . another thing Rice has decided it can do without.

But I do not think there is a consensus to have a small, regional football program. My thoughts are we either have to play and win our share of games against teams we care about or end up folding some time in the future. The folding would be either dropping down to D3 or getting rid of football. We do not get enough fans to want to watch us lose to directional states that the only thing we have in common with is less than top level athletics.

(01-24-2017 12:10 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:54 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

So if we are tied with La Tech in the 2nd quarter once every four years, before going on to lose by 4+ touchdowns, we are decisively uncompetitive but not embarrassingly so.

Just want to make sure I've got the calibration right.

That sort of thing would matter if La. Tech were an important rivalry game. Otherwise successful coaches might get canned for repeatedly getting blown out in the big rivalry game.

Ahhh, rivalry games . . . another thing Rice has decided it can do without.

(01-24-2017 01:08 PM)75src Wrote:  But I do not think there is a consensus to have a small, regional football program. My thoughts are we either have to play and win our share of games against teams we care about or end up folding some time in the future. The folding would be either dropping down to D3 or getting rid of football. We do not get enough fans to want to watch us lose to directional states that the only thing we have in common with is less than top level athletics.

(01-24-2017 12:10 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(01-22-2017 12:54 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  But since there is no consensus to have anything other than a small, regional, football program that graduates its players, follows NCAA rules, and is not embarrassingly noncompetitive at this level on a sustained basis, then Bailiff really has not failed at any those of parameters for long enough to merit being shown the door.

So if we are tied with La Tech in the 2nd quarter once every four years, before going on to lose by 4+ touchdowns, we are decisively uncompetitive but not embarrassingly so.

Just want to make sure I've got the calibration right.

That sort of thing would matter if La. Tech were an important rivalry game. Otherwise successful coaches might get canned for repeatedly getting blown out in the big rivalry game.

Ahhh, rivalry games . . . another thing Rice has decided it can do without.

You are correct...although I did say something different.

I did not say there is a consensus to have what we have, and I do not believe there is. More than enough people (disguised mainly as empty seats at HRS) are unhappy with the status quo to say that there is no consensus to have what we have.

I said there is no consensus to have something other than what we have. Now that we have ended up here, we have no consensus about what to do about it, or even if anything should be done about it.

There are of course all sorts of possible ideas and actions to take, going in either direction along the spectrum from "drop to D3" to "do whatever it takes to get back to P5," but no consensus for any one idea or even the general direction in which to go. It is a fundamental ambivalence that is so, so Rice.

So we are going to muddle along where we are and generally let the ball play us instead of us playing the ball. Which is exactly how we got here in the first place.

(01-24-2017 12:10 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Ahhh, rivalry games . . . another thing Rice has decided it can do without.

Who exactly do you believe would make it a priority to have a rivalry with Rice?