With the departure of Rhoades, Rice has now lost 6 of the best 7 players from last years team and graduated 1 senior. He poached the best player in the conference to go with him.

I might be remembering who recruited some of the guys incorrectly, but by my count the years Rhoades was at Rice 13 out of the 20 kids he recruited transferred. 2 more transferred when he signed on. 4 walkons were on the roster and left while he was here. And he signed 0 kids for next season's class before leaving.

This last season was great in terms of wins but I doubt it changed the perception of our program coming in 5th in the conference. So what do you think Rhoades' legacy should be at Rice?

I think he had a good run. Likable guy who worked hard and quickly turned around the fortunes of the basketball team. I know some of the guys left much earlier than we would have liked, but I don't think you can fault Jackson and Koulechov for leaving after they received their degrees. Maybe if you think of some of the others as reverse JUCOs, then you won't have such a sour taste in your mouth.

I'll liken Rhoades to one of many Tulsa basketball coaches they had in their ongoing saga. They've went through Tubby Smith, Steve Robinson, Bill Self, Buzz Peterson, John Phillips (Pooh Williamson as interim coach), Doug Wojcik, Danny Manning now Frank Haith since 1991-92. In that time, we've had 3 head coaches (Willis Wilson, Ben Braun, Mike Rhoades and Scott Peera will be #4). Obviously, Tulsa has had much better success in men's basketball than we have but they've only had 3 losing records in those 25 seasons and my hope is we can at least get our program to the point that we're a .500 team during our down seasons.

(04-18-2017 04:59 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  And he signed 0 kids for next season's class before leaving.

At the time he left, Rice only had 1 open scholarship (Drone graduating), so I don't fault him at all for that. And I don't fault him for leaving generally, given his past history at VCU and because that part of the country was his "home" before coming to Rice.

As I have stated elsewhere, I don't fault him for Marcus Evans, due to their close bond.

And I don't fault anyone for Koulechov and Jackson, as both received Rice degrees. Both were obviously at risk of leaving (with all rumors suggesting Koulechov was gone) regardless of Rhoades.

It sounds like Lott's decision is being made separate from basketball (the people saying so on this forum have a pretty good reputation for knowing what is going on).

That leaves Douglas & Letcher-Ellis. While a bummer to lose these guys, if they don't want to be at Rice, oh well. Hope they are replaced with guys who actually want to be here.

I think Rhoades's legacy at Rice depends completely on how Pera does the next 2 seasons. If Rice can finish above .500 next year and then is back toward the top of CUSA in 2018-19, I think Rhoades's legacy is that he got Rice started on the path toward a better basketball program. If Rice goes back to sucking, then his legacy is right alongside a number of uneventful basketball coaches at Rice, maybe with Scott Thompson as guys who left a year too early to cement a good legacy at Rice.

All good points. Sad thing is you just wonder if LSU hadn't started this whole damn thing by firing their coach. I suspect Mike would have been here next year if the VCU job hadn't opened up.

I will say I have never seen a bandwagon crash so dramatically.

(04-18-2017 05:13 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think he had a good run. Likable guy who worked hard and quickly turned around the fortunes of the basketball team. I know some of the guys left much earlier than we would have liked, but I don't think you can fault Jackson and Koulechov for leaving after they received their degrees. Maybe if you think of some of the others as reverse JUCOs, then you won't have such a sour taste in your mouth.

I'll liken Rhoades to one of many Tulsa basketball coaches they had in their ongoing saga. They've went through Tubby Smith, Steve Robinson, Bill Self, Buzz Peterson, John Phillips (Pooh Williamson as interim coach), Doug Wojcik, Danny Manning now Frank Haith since 1991-92. In that time, we've had 3 head coaches (Willis Wilson, Ben Braun, Mike Rhoades and Scott Peera will be #4). Obviously, Tulsa has had much better success in men's basketball than we have but they've only had 3 losing records in those 25 seasons and my hope is we can at least get our program to the point that we're a .500 team during our down seasons.

As I pointed out in the recruiting thread Tulsa's run started with Nolan Richardson and at no time did they suffer from multiples of players leaving when they had a coaching change. In some ways we are like KU and Duke with one and done's. We offer players who were under recruited (at least in their minds), give them a chance to play right away, and then they move on to a better program. Ennis, Kazemi, Oraby, Obi, and Evans all wound up at better programs. Jury is out on the rest from Braun's mass exodus and the rest of Rhoades.

Having said that I think Rhoades legacy is a good one. He demonstrated with his first team that he could improve talent inherited. His second season would have certainly been better if Jackson and Lott hadn't suffered season ending injuries and never saw the court. Year 3 would have been a solid foundation for the future if he had stayed. Unlike Braun, Rhoades and staff worked their butts off like Thompson's staff to engage the students and it showed in the student section this year. Hopefully Perra will keep that going.

WHAT legacy???

Unlike TG, he stuck around a bit longer, and turned down interest from VCU once (IIRC). Much like TG, he left to return to his previous school where he was an assistant. In both cases Rice had bad luck. Tulsa and VCU were possibly the only mid-majors that were going to offer the money after only 1 successful season that Rice couldn't match. Both had openings right at the time that Rhodes and TG has winning seasons at Rice. I don't have any ill will towards Rhodes. Yea, he took Evans, but c'mon - a Virginia native whom he recruited to Rice and whose sister graduated from VCU - if Rice didn't ban VCU from the transfer list and Marcus was interested, of course Rhodes was going to welcome Evans. Don't think he had anything to do with the other transfers other than recruiting them to Rice.

As far as his legacy - not much of an impact at the end of the day. Just a coach who came and did a solid job, nothing more. Could've been a lot more, but he chose the better financial deal at the better basketball program. Don't really blame him. The empty stands in a 23 win season had to be a factor to both Rhodes and the transfers. The biggest difference between Rice and other academic schools who compete at high level is the P5 status - which is what Rice needs as much or more than winning, for attendance issues, to make up for small enrollment. There aren't any other really good academic schools in G5 conferences, just Rice. Wish we had done more to be like those other academic schools (P5 status). Probably too late now.

Rice has learned its lesson by now, but not sure it can or wants to do anything about it. A successful coach at Rice will always be noticed. If WG wasn't his age when he got here, and/or if college baseball was a bit bigger, we might've lost him too. Rice just doesn't have the support to compete with P5 programs or even mid major programs that are simply hungrier than Rice.

(04-18-2017 07:44 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  WHAT legacy???

You could have said the same thing about Thompson after 3 years. 6-21, 12-16, 11-17.

(04-18-2017 07:46 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  Unlike TG, he stuck around a bit longer, and turned down interest from VCU once (IIRC). Much like TG, he left to return to his previous school where he was an assistant. In both cases Rice had bad luck. Tulsa and VCU were possibly the only mid-majors that were going to offer the money after only 1 successful season that Rice couldn't match. Both had openings right at the time that Rhodes and TG has winning seasons at Rice. I don't have any ill will towards Rhodes. Yea, he took Evans, but c'mon - a Virginia native whom he recruited to Rice and whose sister graduated from VCU - if Rice didn't ban VCU from the transfer list and Marcus was interested, of course Rhodes was going to welcome Evans. Don't think he had anything to do with the other transfers other than recruiting them to Rice.

As far as his legacy - not much of an impact at the end of the day. Just a coach who came and did a solid job, nothing more. Could've been a lot more, but he chose the better financial deal at the better basketball program. Don't really blame him. The empty stands in a 23 win season had to be a factor to both Rhodes and the transfers. The biggest difference between Rice and other academic schools who compete at high level is the P5 status - which is what Rice needs as much or more than winning, for attendance issues, to make up for small enrollment. There aren't any other really good academic schools in G5 conferences, just Rice. Wish we had done more to be like those other academic schools (P5 status). Probably too late now.

Rice has learned its lesson by now, but not sure it can or wants to do anything about it. A successful coach at Rice will always be noticed. If WG wasn't his age when he got here, and/or if college baseball was a bit bigger, we might've lost him too. Rice just doesn't have the support to compete with P5 programs or even mid major programs that are simply hungrier than Rice.

As MK (yet another talent Rice wasted and let go) would say-Church. Sadly, the lesson is where things stand, just can't disagree.

Regarding the transfers...here is a thought. Since we are either unwilling or unable to put Rice in a position where we don't have a max exodus of players due to fan support, institutional support, etc, etc, ad nauseum...why not embrace reality. Sell Rice as a school to elite players who are looking to "audition" for the P5 schools. All we require is you go to class, play hard, and stay a minimum of two years. I know that this is completely ludicrous...but you know this is just reality in the current NCAA. Until things change either with the NCAA and the transfer rules or Rice fully becomes a destination school for good to elite talent, we will run the risk of good players coming here to showcase their skills. There is precedent. Dylan Ennis was 1 pt away from playing for the National Championship.

On a less ridiculous note...I find it hard to believe that other schools are actually waiting until our players announce their intent to transfer before recruiting our players.

(04-18-2017 09:15 PM)Pan95 Wrote:  Regarding the transfers...here is a thought. Since we are either unwilling or unable to put Rice in a position where we don't have a max exodus of players due to fan support, institutional support, etc, etc, ad nauseum...why not embrace reality. Sell Rice as a school to elite players who are looking to "audition" for the P5 schools. All we require is you go to class, play hard, and stay a minimum of two years. I know that this is completely ludicrous...but you know this is just reality in the current NCAA. Until things change either with the NCAA and the transfer rules or Rice fully becomes a destination school for good to elite talent, we will run the risk of good players coming here to showcase their skills. There is precedent. Dylan Ennis was 1 pt away from playing for the National Championship.

On a less ridiculous note...I find it hard to believe that other schools are actually waiting until our players announce their intent to transfer before recruiting our players.

YES. The players are using Rice now for their own benefit and the school gets nothing. Lets make it a mutually beneficial arrangement. And when they transfer out, no hard feelings.

(04-18-2017 07:44 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  WHAT legacy???

I was wondering the same thing. Its hard to have a notable legacy with a record of 47-52. He did a great job of recruiting some great players, but none of that matters when you leave and the entire starting lineup follows you out the door. I think that if the team had stayed together for next year, we would have been favorites to win the conference and it would have been the best Rice team in a very long time. So I think that will ultimately be his legacy at Rice. I can't say that I blame him for taking his dream job, but that's just how it is.

Inherited a program in shambles.

Worked hard. Recruited well. Brought energy and excitement. Built the team into a competitive winner.

Left the program in shambles.

(04-18-2017 10:11 PM)Minnewaska Owl Wrote:  Inherited a program in shambles.

Worked hard. Recruited well. Brought energy and excitement. Built the team into a competitive winner.

Left the program in shambles.

But in the end, he left it really no better than he found it. A true professional wants to build something that will thrive when he is gone.

(04-18-2017 07:00 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I will say I have never seen a bandwagon crash so dramatically.

Rice baseball?

(04-19-2017 10:24 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-18-2017 07:00 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  I will say I have never seen a bandwagon crash so dramatically.

Rice baseball?

Todd Graham?

Two points.

1) Rhoades legacy will be defined by what he does at VCU, not what he did at Rice. Rice will be seen as a footnote as being a stepping stone getting his first HC gig. For broader Rice MBB legacy, Rhoades will be defined by what Pera does since he brought Pera into the mix. If Pera succeeds, Rhoades legacy grows as planting the seeds of change. If he fails, will be just another long list of Rice MBB coaches who could not win with < .500 records.

2) Independent of the NCAA variables about MBB today that have been well discussed here (compared to football), one thing DB does/did much better than Rhoades is recruit Rice benefits. Rhoades recruited around him, culture he was building, fraternity with other players, enthusiasm, etc. So that approach is only as good as him being here. They were/are loyal to him, not Rice. DB could leave tomorrow and you are not going to see guys transferring out as they are here for Rice and the ‘Total Package’ that Rice FB successfully markets. I hope Pera can do same thing that DB does in this regard as it is easy to point to guys like Tudor, Youngkin, etc. that were able to benefit much larger from receiving a Rice education than the basketball itself. Independent of all the negative points beat to death ad nauseum around DB weaknesses, he has figured-out how to make lemonade with the Rice positives. Rhoades did not. Guys were here to play in a system for a guy they liked and believe they were going to then make $$ after turning this around. Rice was a means to a basketball end vs. basketball being the means to a Rice education end.

(04-19-2017 11:13 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Two points.

1) Rhoades legacy will be defined by what he does at VCU, not what he did at Rice. Rice will be seen as a footnote as being a stepping stone getting his first HC gig. For broader Rice MBB legacy, Rhoades will be defined by what Pera does since he brought Pera into the mix. If Pera succeeds, Rhoades legacy grows as planting the seeds of change. If he fails, will be just another long list of Rice MBB coaches who could not win with < .500 records.

2) Independent of the NCAA variables about MBB today that have been well discussed here (compared to football), one thing DB does/did much better than Rhoades is recruit Rice benefits. Rhoades recruited around him, culture he was building, fraternity with other players, enthusiasm, etc. So that approach is only as good as him being here. They were/are loyal to him, not Rice. DB could leave tomorrow and you are not going to see guys transferring out as they are here for Rice and the ‘Total Package’ that Rice FB successfully markets. I hope Pera can do same thing that DB does in this regard as it is easy to point to guys like Tudor, Youngkin, etc. that were able to benefit much larger from receiving a Rice education than the basketball itself. Independent of all the negative points beat to death ad nauseum around DB weaknesses, he has figured-out how to make lemonade with the Rice positives. Rhoades did not. Guys were here to play in a system for a guy they liked and believe they were going to then make $$ after turning this around. Rice was a means to a basketball end vs. basketball being the means to a Rice education end.

I think #2 is a bit apples / oranges, in my opinion.

1) A football team is obviously larger than a basketball team. Psychologically (and obviously from an on-the-court perspective as well), it makes a bigger impact on a basketball program if, say, two guys transfer off a basketball team than a football team. The other 13 players start to wonder if something's wrong and then a domino effect starts to take place, where multiple others transfer. Exhibit A of that is Rice basketball. I think a few guys transferring from football is first perceived as more of a "they weren't fits for the program" than an "oh crap, something is wrong with the program itself"

2) Professional opportunities differ. 1) There's basically three professional options for football: NFL, CFL and the Arena Football League. Maybe a few other small arena leagues that pay pennies. Basketball is a much more global sport and there are tens of leagues that you can make a living in. Consequently, I think, compared to the average football player, the average basketball player thinks he has a better shot and going pro and doesn't care as much about academics.


I do agree that Bailiff does a better job of marketing Rice's advantages off the field/court, but I think he's got some inherent advantages being a coach of a football team versus a basketball team.

(04-19-2017 11:13 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Two points.

1) Rhoades legacy will be defined by what he does at VCU, not what he did at Rice. Rice will be seen as a footnote as being a stepping stone getting his first HC gig. For broader Rice MBB legacy, Rhoades will be defined by what Pera does since he brought Pera into the mix. If Pera succeeds, Rhoades legacy grows as planting the seeds of change. If he fails, will be just another long list of Rice MBB coaches who could not win with < .500 records.

2) Independent of the NCAA variables about MBB today that have been well discussed here (compared to football), one thing DB does/did much better than Rhoades is recruit Rice benefits. Rhoades recruited around him, culture he was building, fraternity with other players, enthusiasm, etc. So that approach is only as good as him being here. They were/are loyal to him, not Rice. DB could leave tomorrow and you are not going to see guys transferring out as they are here for Rice and the ‘Total Package’ that Rice FB successfully markets. I hope Pera can do same thing that DB does in this regard as it is easy to point to guys like Tudor, Youngkin, etc. that were able to benefit much larger from receiving a Rice education than the basketball itself. Independent of all the negative points beat to death ad nauseum around DB weaknesses, he has figured-out how to make lemonade with the Rice positives. Rhoades did not. Guys were here to play in a system for a guy they liked and believe they were going to then make $$ after turning this around. Rice was a means to a basketball end vs. basketball being the means to a Rice education end.

I really like your 2nd point - and am in agreement with it. Regarding your first point, I am focusing more on Rhoades' legacy in regards to how his time here has positively impacted Rice MBB - both now and in the future. From that perspective, I just can't give him a positive grade. In my mind Pera is inheriting a basketball program that has to be re-built from ground zero. Maybe people can effectively argue that our current situation is not really Rhoades' fault, but it is what it is. If Pera does somehow turn things around and our program develops into one with long-term success, it will be to his credit and lasting legacy - not Rhoades. That's my thinking any way.