(09-07-2017 02:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 10:17 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:58 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  We were also pretty awful for the first half of 2012 and all of 2014. We managed to produce a barely over .500 record and bowl eligibility only because we won had 6 or 7 games on our schedule against teams ranked in the bottom quintile of the FBS division, and were just barely good enough to beat them. We were blown out in all other games played those seasons.

Same for 2006.

That's simply not true...and what does 2006 have to do with Bailiff? Yes, we finished the regular season 7-5, and were blown out by Top 10 ranked UT and FSU, but we lost by one point to a quality UH team, and were competitive against both UCLA and Tulane in road losses. It also has to be said that CUSA was a much, MUCH stronger conference back in 2006 than it has been since 2012 (with a borderline Top 50 teams in UH, ECU, USM and Tulsa).

Didn't we start out 1-5? Texas 52, Rice 7? Florida State 55, Rice 7? Didn't we make our record against the dregs of D-1? Were we not lucky to get the UAB win? And then we got crushed by ...Troy? Sounds pretty much like what you said.

Again, no. Yes, as I said, we got slaughtered by two Top 10 teams, but unlike Bailiff-coached teams, we were very competitive in road losses to UCLA and Tulane, and lost to a quality (Top 75 UH team by just one point in the season opener). Our wins against UCF, ECU, Tulsa and UTEP were not against "the dregs of the FBS division, as I believe all of them were Top 100 programs, and ECU and Tulsa were both Top 75 programs at the time. Bailiff's bowl-bound teams in both 2012 and 2014 were blown off the field by every team not ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division.

Whhhyyyyyy????

We beat SMU in 2012 (36-14) and they ended the year at 57 and ranked higher than us. As hard as it is to believe, KU that year actually sneaks into the upper 3rd of FBS teams as well. Also, in 2012 we lost to Tulsa by 4 (ranked 47) and La Tech by 19 (ranked 51 - and I consider a blowout 4 TDs or more).

2014 may have actually seen UTEP sneak into the top third - they were ranked 104 in Sagarin, and since that is FBS and FCS, there may have been 8 teams in FCS ranked ahead. But the rest of our wins were against the dregs.

Again, and again, and again, you don't need to exaggerate DB's quality as a coach or how bad our teams were to point out they weren't very good.

(09-07-2017 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think at this point, that if someone doesn't see that DB needs to go, they are delusional. 2016 absolutely cemented that idea in my mind, and it should have done the same for every single person out there.

I was leaning toward the idea that he needed to go, but hoping that he would prove me wrong because I like him very much as a person. 2016 pushed me off the fence.

While I'm unhappy with the quantitative metrics (wins/losses, score margins), I am more unhappy with the qualitative aspects. I have just never believed that Bailiff's approach is one that can work at Rice. He was wedded to doing things one way, and just keep plugging square pegs of talent into round holes of a system that did not match, until we can recruit the talent to make it work. The switch from 4-2-5 to 3-4 was a huge departure, but so far it still looks like more of the same inability to prevent the big play. I don't think we will ever be able to out-athlete the majority of our opponents on a consistent basis, because of our academics and other requirements (with which I generally agree). So what we have to do IMO is to recruit as well as possible to narrow the talent gap, and then scheme and execute to make up any remaining talent gap. Basically, we have to run contrarian schemes and play mistake-free football, in order to beat teams with more raw talent. I wouldn't describe any of Bailiff's teams as playing mistake-free football.

He is the only coach I've ever seen who constantly tries to play a conservative game without having a good defense or kicking game. I really don't understand why we keep trying to do things that our personnel cannot execute.

Quote:To your other comment, while I think the state of our facilities were detrimental to DB and that the EZF was not a cure all, it was a much needed improvement that could not be ignored. We needed to address two things after 2016 (and some would argue 2015, and others much earlier): coaching and facilities. We decided to address facilities and then coaching, which makes sense - when we hire someone new, let's give them a full deck of cards to play with. We just didn't pull the trigger soon enough.

Where I think the facilities may matter is the quality of the successor that we may be able to hire to follow Bailiff. That hasn't worked for SMU, but maybe we can make it work for us.

Even the assistant coach at the local high school knows better. He told me it is not really the scheme that matters as much as getting the players to execute it. Most coaches know the various schemes from clinics etc. so you need to know your players. It is easier to change schemes than change players.

quote='Owl 69/70/75' pid='14563868' dateline='1504825060']

(09-07-2017 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think at this point, that if someone doesn't see that DB needs to go, they are delusional. 2016 absolutely cemented that idea in my mind, and it should have done the same for every single person out there.

I was leaning toward the idea that he needed to go, but hoping that he would prove me wrong because I like him very much as a person. 2016 pushed me off the fence.

While I'm unhappy with the quantitative metrics (wins/losses, score margins), I am more unhappy with the qualitative aspects. I have just never believed that Bailiff's approach is one that can work at Rice. He was wedded to doing things one way, and just keep plugging square pegs of talent into round holes of a system that did not match, until we can recruit the talent to make it work. The switch from 4-2-5 to 3-4 was a huge departure, but so far it still looks like more of the same inability to prevent the big play. I don't think we will ever be able to out-athlete the majority of our opponents on a consistent basis, because of our academics and other requirements (with which I generally agree). So what we have to do IMO is to recruit as well as possible to narrow the talent gap, and then scheme and execute to make up any remaining talent gap. Basically, we have to run contrarian schemes and play mistake-free football, in order to beat teams with more raw talent. I wouldn't describe any of Bailiff's teams as playing mistake-free football.

He is the only coach I've ever seen who constantly tries to play a conservative game without having a good defense or kicking game. I really don't understand why we keep trying to do things that our personnel cannot execute.

Quote:To your other comment, while I think the state of our facilities were detrimental to DB and that the EZF was not a cure all, it was a much needed improvement that could not be ignored. We needed to address two things after 2016 (and some would argue 2015, and others much earlier): coaching and facilities. We decided to address facilities and then coaching, which makes sense - when we hire someone new, let's give them a full deck of cards to play with. We just didn't pull the trigger soon enough.

Where I think the facilities may matter is the quality of the successor that we may be able to hire to follow Bailiff. That hasn't worked for SMU, but maybe we can make it work for us.
[/quote]

(09-07-2017 06:10 PM)75src Wrote:  Even the assistant coach at the local high school knows better. He told me it is not really the scheme that matters as much as getting the players to execute it. Most coaches know the various schemes from clinics etc. so you need to know your players. It is easier to change schemes than change players.

Execution seems to have been a recurring problem under Bailiff. I still don't think we have effective practices, but that is based more on looking at on-field in-game behavior than on attending a lot of practices.

I'm sorry, but the first five minutes against Stanford looked like they'd found a few guys drinking beer and grilling brats in the parking lot, and thrown them some unis and asked, "Hey, do you want to go play some ball?"

Our student-athletes deserve to be better prepared in order to spare them that kind of embarrassment, and our university deserves to have its representatives better prepared.

Did you see the game in person? I saw it on television.

BTW, the local high school almost always has a winning record and goes beyond one round in the playoffs. They seem more organized than what I have seen lately from Rice.

(09-07-2017 06:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-07-2017 06:10 PM)75src Wrote:  Even the assistant coach at the local high school knows better. He told me it is not really the scheme that matters as much as getting the players to execute it. Most coaches know the various schemes from clinics etc. so you need to know your players. It is easier to change schemes than change players.

Execution seems to have been a recurring problem under Bailiff. I still don't think we have effective practices, but that is based more on looking at on-field in-game behavior than on attending a lot of practices.

I'm sorry, but the first five minutes against Stanford looked like they'd found a few guys drinking beer and grilling brats in the parking lot, and thrown them some unit and asked, "Hey, do you want to go play some ball?"

Our student-athletes deserve to be better prepared in order to spare them that kind of embarrassment, and our university deserves to have its representatives better prepared.

(09-07-2017 07:21 PM)75src Wrote:  Did you see the game in person? I saw it on television.
BTW, the local high school almost always has a winning record and goes beyond one round in the playoffs. They seem more organized than what I have seen lately from Rice.

No, TV here too. For as long as I could stand it, which wasn't very.

Would have loved to have made the trip. I think you know Sydney is absolutely one of my very favorite places, but it was first week of fall semester and we were implementing some changes that I needed to be there for.

The following excerpt says it all for me:

"While I'm unhappy with the quantitative metrics (wins/losses, score margins), I am more unhappy with the qualitative aspects. I have just never believed that Bailiff's approach is one that can work at Rice. He was wedded to doing things one way, and just keep plugging square pegs of talent into round holes of a system that did not match, until we can recruit the talent to make it work. The switch from 4-2-5 to 3-4 was a huge departure, but so far it still looks like more of the same inability to prevent the big play. I don't think we will ever be able to out-athlete the majority of our opponents on a consistent basis, because of our academics and other requirements (with which I generally agree). So what we have to do IMO is to recruit as well as possible to narrow the talent gap, and then scheme and execute to make up any remaining talent gap. Basically, we have to run contrarian schemes and play mistake-free football, in order to beat teams with more raw talent. I wouldn't describe any of Bailiff's teams as playing mistake-free football.

He is the only coach I've ever seen who constantly tries to play a conservative game without having a good defense or kicking game."

Consistent with the above, my take follows:

Barring a miracle turnaround IMO Bailiff clearly needs to go.

And to vote with my dollars (symbolically) I returned my season tickets for a refund yesterday.

This gesture engendered a call from a nice young man from the Rice ticket office asking me to reconsider...we talked.

I explained that I have been a season ticket holder for over 40 years, but like the Broadcast movie line, " I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore."

Though I regret having to take this step, I feel it is the only effective way to register displeasure at the direction the football program has taken.

Moreover, if Rice cannot or will not commit to higher athletic standards - consistent execution, minimal mental and physical errors, and creative strategies that partially offset skill disparity, we should consider discontinuing D-1 football, thereby cutting our losses and halting further damage to our institutional image of excellence.

I hope the opposite ensues and Owl football can make all Rice graduates and fans proud again.

Rice Fight Never Dies !

(09-08-2017 03:26 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  we should consider discontinuing D-1 football,

Rice Fight Never Dies !

Never say never.

(09-08-2017 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 03:26 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  we should consider discontinuing D-1 football,

Rice Fight Never Dies !

Never say never.

Append the word 'again' and you are now into the realm of among the worst of the Bond movies.

(09-08-2017 03:26 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  Rice Fight Never Dies !

But owlman70's does.

I wish it weren't so, Rod. Sigh.

(09-08-2017 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 03:26 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  we should consider discontinuing D-1 football,

Rice Fight Never Dies !

Never say never.

Append the word 'again' and you are now into the realm of among the worst of the Bond movies.

In fairness, it was not one of the Broccoli franchise. Starring an older Sean Connery, it was a somewhat altered remake of Thunderball.

"They punked Rice, they made Rice look like a high school team". Quote from CBS College Sports commentator on National TV. The Bailiff legacy in few words. JK you're on the clock

(09-09-2017 04:29 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  "They punked Rice, they made Rice look like a high school team". Quote from CBS College Sports commentator on National TV. The Bailiff legacy in few words. JK you're on the clock

Yikes - was that from this week?

(09-08-2017 03:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-08-2017 03:26 PM)owlman70 Wrote:  we should consider discontinuing D-1 football,

Rice Fight Never Dies !

Never say never.

Is the athletic department showing "Rice Fight"? Is the BOT?

I'm still bummed our most recent OOC (out-of-country) game was a loss.

[quote='greyowl72' pid='14530940' dateline='1503856546'

The "Rice Stinks" comment may, in my opinion, be the symbolic turning point for the football program. It was said to a national audience. It cannot be ignored. The AD has heard it. The President has heard it. By now the coaches have heard it. The poor players and their families have heard it now. No doubt a number of the BOT heard it in real time. For a university that strives to be respected and viewed by its peers as a top 10 or 20 school in this nation, the comment "Rice stinks" cannot be ignored. It cheapens Rice. Not only as a team, but it paints us as an institution that is truly not capable of being upper echelon university at every level. Either because we are unwilling to to use our considerable resources to not stink, or we are clueless as to how to not stink. The "Rice Stinks" comment sickens me. For god's sake, somebody wake up and do something.
[/quote]
The 2017 season is half over. 5 games AFTER the Rice/Stanford debacle in Sydney. Still NOBODY in authority has stepped up to done anything to answer the "Rice Stinks" comment.
NOBODY.
I'm ashamed for this football program.
I'm sick for the parents of the players.
No one can justify this.