(10-19-2017 03:58 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

Sorry, I didn't state explicitly what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that circa fall 2012/spring 2013 that the administration was thinking that we could dominate C-USA and that this thought process was a factor in Rice not moving along to the AAC.

Agree that CUSA is easier to compete in than AAC, I just don't give the administration credit for having that type of foresight, as it relates to hypothetically proactively declining the AAC.

I think the whole conference non-change was a money grab - not having to pay an exit fee, and receiving Rice's split of the other team's exit fees. They probably also thought that CUSA wasn't going to get more worse quality-wise.

The whole way the department seems to run is on a cash flow-focused benefit analysis. That's how you wind up with coaches past their expiration date, because paying the buyout fees cannot be done without scraping from other programs.

Many of these comments seem to assume we had some say in the matter. I don't recall ever seeing that we had an offer or even a discussion with the AAC.

(10-19-2017 12:30 PM)ETx Owl Wrote:  IN the mean time, two old Missouri Valley conference foes go head to head tonight on TV, one a basketball school, the other our cross town rival , who needed us to get into SWC AND WHO WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER LET INTO THE SWC FROM A 20/20 HINDSIGHT PERSPECTIVE GIVEN THEY WERE A BIG REASON OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE SWC. They have progressed, we are lower than those we used to look down our noses at. Painful. AGREE 100%

my insert in bold caps.....

(10-19-2017 04:02 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:58 PM)gsloth Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

Sorry, I didn't state explicitly what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that circa fall 2012/spring 2013 that the administration was thinking that we could dominate C-USA and that this thought process was a factor in Rice not moving along to the AAC.

Agree that CUSA is easier to compete in than AAC, I just don't give the administration credit for having that type of foresight, as it relates to hypothetically proactively declining the AAC.

I think the whole conference non-change was a money grab - not having to pay an exit fee, and receiving Rice's split of the other team's exit fees. They probably also thought that CUSA wasn't going to get more worse quality-wise.

The whole way the department seems to run is on a cash flow-focused benefit analysis. That's how you wind up with coaches past their expiration date, because paying the buyout fees cannot be done without scraping from other programs.

Many of these comments seem to assume we had some say in the matter. I don't recall ever seeing that we had an offer or even a discussion with the AAC.

Maybe, maybe not. But the perception (I wish I could find the quote) that Rice was at the front of trying to set up some alternate super-conference (remember the proposals for some MWC/CUSA/Sunbelt behemoth with like 4 quadrants or something?) suggests to me that they were going to play the CUSA angle throughout. They played to stay where we're at, rather than pursuing a falling Big East/ultimately AAA configuration. Remember how close to death the Big East football conference seemed at one point, as teams got poached and then TCU and Boise State backed out.

(10-19-2017 08:57 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Maybe, maybe not. But the perception (I wish I could find the quote) that Rice was at the front of trying to set up some alternate super-conference (remember the proposals for some MWC/CUSA/Sunbelt behemoth with like 4 quadrants or something?) suggests to me that they were going to play the CUSA angle throughout. They played to stay where we're at, rather than pursuing a falling Big East/ultimately AAA configuration. Remember how close to death the Big East football conference seemed at one point, as teams got poached and then TCU and Boise State backed out.

here you go:
"The decision by Conference USA and the Mountain West to merge into a new entity is the dawning of an exciting new chapter for Rice Athletics. This new conference is one that allows us to retain much of the competitive equity and familiarity we have built up over our seven years in C-USA while also broadening our appeal to an even wider audience. It will address many of the core concerns that have led others to seek new affiliations and does so without a significant increase in the demands we place on our student-athletes. Much remains to be determined in terms of the final configuration of our new affiliation, but I am convinced that the move today is a significant step forward in the future of Rice Athletics."

http://www.riceowls.com/genrel/021312aab.html

http://www.chron.com/sports/college/arti...190320.php

(10-19-2017 03:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't state explicitly what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that circa fall 2012/spring 2013 that the administration was thinking that we could dominate C-USA and that this thought process was a factor in Rice not moving along to the AAC.

Agree that CUSA is easier to compete in than AAC, I just don't give the administration credit for having that type of foresight, as it relates to hypothetically proactively declining the AAC.

no worries, and I wasn't clear at all....

I think our 'other' sports have done well by being in weak CUSA

I think baseball has suffered a bit because others have copied our model and even improved upon it. We're still very very good/elite... but others are doing well also

I think basketball and football they thought they could do better in a weaker conference... the 'dumb it down and just win' mentality and comment has been repeated often, including and especially by recent players

So while they may have lacked the broader foresight as you mention, I think they were thinking about basketball as being the driver of improved athletics at Rice at the time.

(10-19-2017 03:43 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC. We would be equally bad, just more apparent to the world how bad that is.

I think hiding that to create enthusiasm among Rice people and perhaps recruits was the idea

This is a concern. I mean, we pride ourselves on football players who are student-athletes, not just athletes. These guys aren't dumb - and that's why I find it interesting that we would try to pull the wool over their eyes. Thats a general comment, not directed at you or your thoughts.

I think we have seen with our recruiting that they were not fooled. With EZF, Bailiff now holds the distinction of having his recruiting classes plummet from decent to near bottom of FBS.

The same applies to Rice students and fans.

The people making these decisions aren't always Rice students and fans, nor are they often from Texas where football is a religion.

(10-20-2017 01:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:43 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC. We would be equally bad, just more apparent to the world how bad that is.

I think hiding that to create enthusiasm among Rice people and perhaps recruits was the idea

This is a concern. I mean, we pride ourselves on football players who are student-athletes, not just athletes. These guys aren't dumb - and that's why I find it interesting that we would try to pull the wool over their eyes. Thats a general comment, not directed at you or your thoughts.

I think we have seen with our recruiting that they were not fooled. With EZF, Bailiff now holds the distinction of having his recruiting classes plummet from decent to near bottom of FBS.

The same applies to Rice students and fans.

The people making these decisions aren't always Rice students and fans, nor are they often from Texas where football is a religion.

But Bailiff is from Texas. And I don't know whether he just is powerless to fix the issue or he believes that he is actually doing a good job. We have former players under Bailiff who believe that beating weaksauce opposition is moving the needle and the missing links were the EZF and dumbing down the competition. Is that master salesman by Bailiff or is he convinced of this madness and indoctrinating this approach?

As a non-Texan, I wonder if the problem is too many decisions are made based on football being a Religion. At the risk of derailing this discussion, I feel like too many decisions are made with a dogmatic and inflexible approach. "we always did it that way" or "that's how my father did it", those are the underlying themes I feel. Bailiff recruiting Texas and Texas alone - that isn't a forward thinking approach; it seems like that's all he knows. As a non-Texan, maybe I am less attached to the concept of football or bust or the attachment to having a band - that said, most of the Texan students don't seem to care either.

I just don't know who could think that beating C-USA dregs was the way to the promised land. And how/why are we making the decision to hire or retain these people?

EDIT: This is not a anti-Texas post in any way. I obviously like it here, otherwise I wouldn't have stayed. I simply feel that the Texas pride with regard to football is outdated as it pertains to Rice. The rah-rah Texas football types don't seem to come to Rice anymore, nor do we get the pride of Texas football in terms of recruits.

Every Post in this Thread has merit. The entire Thresher article is JK spin.

Rice could lose to UTSA by 40 points tonight and Bailiff still keeps his job. Rice could lose the rest of the season. No Big Deal.

This is purely an economic issue. Bailiff won’t be gone until his departure cost is the minimal hit on the Bottom Line for the University.

(10-21-2017 06:08 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  Every Post in this Thread has merit. The entire Thresher article is JK spin.

Rice could lose to UTSA by 40 points tonight and Bailiff still keeps his job. Rice could lose the rest of the season. No Big Deal.

This is purely an economic issue. Bailiff won’t be gone until his departure cost is the minimal hit on the Bottom Line for the University.

Again, that is simply not true, and repeating it doesn't make it so. They had the money last year to buy out his contract had they so desired.

(10-21-2017 07:40 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 06:08 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote:  Every Post in this Thread has merit. The entire Thresher article is JK spin.

Rice could lose to UTSA by 40 points tonight and Bailiff still keeps his job. Rice could lose the rest of the season. No Big Deal.

This is purely an economic issue. Bailiff won’t be gone until his departure cost is the minimal hit on the Bottom Line for the University.

Again, that is simply not true, and repeating it doesn't make it so. They had the money last year to buy out his contract had they so desired.

Walt-who is this they you talk of? The University did if it wanted to run up the deficit of athletics even more ($1.8M+). The athletic department did not. They did not even have the money to pay for the operating expenses of Patterson last I heard, much less eat a $900 K salary for two years.