(11-28-2017 10:34 AM)AnotherOldOwl Wrote:  Two de-commits as a result of Bailiff dismissal:

http://www.chron.com/sports/rice/article...387411.php

Interesting comments about how far off recruiting had fallen in the last 2-3 years.

You have no clue whether the decommits are due to DB's dismissal or Rice's 1-11 record. Quite honestly, it could be due to either.

(11-28-2017 11:30 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:34 AM)AnotherOldOwl Wrote:  Two de-commits as a result of Bailiff dismissal:

http://www.chron.com/sports/rice/article...387411.php

Interesting comments about how far off recruiting had fallen in the last 2-3 years.

You have no clue whether the decommits are due to DB's dismissal or Rice's 1-11 record. Quite honestly, it could be due to either.

The crap record was on the cards long before these kids even committed. Maybe not the exact 1-11, but they have to know that Rice was going to suck this year... last year made that clear. 3-9 vs 1-11... thats a rounding error, so I do not think the record really changed their minds.

Regardless, no big deal.

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)McHargue Wrote:  ...some of the most influential alumni we have, not just football alumni, signed that letter to ensure Bailiff was not fired.

A couple of questions about the famous letter:
- Have you seen the letter?
- If not, can you name someone who has seen the letter -- not necessarily a signer, but someone who has at least seen it?

As I've mentioned before, I have not met anyone who has said that he has seen it, or even knows someone who has seen it.

Wow...

Our recruiting classes have ranked in the top 10 in the conference (out of what? 14?)

and in the top 100 nationally... again, out of what? 128?

(11-28-2017 12:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow...

Our recruiting classes have ranked in the top 10 in the conference (out of what? 14?)

and in the top 100 nationally... again, out of what? 128?

Our recruiting classes have gone downhill each year since the C-USA championship game...it's mind-boggling, since you would obviously expect the opposite to happen. Another reason that shows how Bailiff and Co. were not even remotely earning their paychecks.

I'm really just speaking of how far the author went to imply that things were going well but had fallen off in the last 3 years.

Rice being #6 in the conference sounds great and I'm sure there was intent of creating buzz based on the new recruiting data, but let's be honest... the guys most g5 schools really want are still hoping that they get the p5 invite. Less true of us for certain, but still somewhat true.

(11-28-2017 12:58 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 12:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Wow...

Our recruiting classes have ranked in the top 10 in the conference (out of what? 14?)

and in the top 100 nationally... again, out of what? 128?

Our recruiting classes have gone downhill each year since the C-USA championship game...it's mind-boggling, since you would obviously expect the opposite to happen. Another reason that shows how Bailiff and Co. were not even remotely earning their paychecks.

IMO, it had everything to do with C-USA merging with the Sunbelt. Our recruiting classes reflected the quality of the conference.. which previously was one of the better G5s but since 2013 has been in the bottom 2.

Rice at least used to target some of the same guys as SMU, Tulsa, UH, Tulane... now we barely have any overlap at all. Why would you come to play at Rice in CUSASunbelt and play a bunch of directional U when you could go to the AAC, still get a decent education and play better ball?

(11-28-2017 11:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)McHargue Wrote:  ...some of the most influential alumni we have, not just football alumni, signed that letter to ensure Bailiff was not fired.

A couple of questions about the famous letter:
- Have you seen the letter?
- If not, can you name someone who has seen the letter -- not necessarily a signer, but someone who has at least seen it?

As I've mentioned before, I have not met anyone who has said that he has seen it, or even knows someone who has seen it.

Pretty definitive proof of its existence in this post (that is, if McHargue's own first-hand report wasn't already definitive enough):

(11-13-2017 06:11 PM)owl40 Wrote:  It is academic at this phase, but I saw the infamous ‘letter’ and was asked to sign it.

I did not.

Taylor signed it as well as a few well-known players from the DB era plus a smattering of influential people that most here would recognize. It was not 250. It was closer to 25....

Rest of owl40's great post here, just edited above for space.

(11-28-2017 11:49 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 11:39 AM)McHargue Wrote:  ...some of the most influential alumni we have, not just football alumni, signed that letter to ensure Bailiff was not fired.

A couple of questions about the famous letter:
- Have you seen the letter?
- If not, can you name someone who has seen the letter -- not necessarily a signer, but someone who has at least seen it?

As I've mentioned before, I have not met anyone who has said that he has seen it, or even knows someone who has seen it.

George -

RiceOwl53 said yesterday in reply to a previous query of yours on this that while he hasn't seen it, he knows people who have seen it and some who signed it, while of course being unwilling to out them (understandably). By accounts, it's a real thing, though the urban legend of the 250 signers was largely discredited recently (by about an order of magnitude).

That's obvious hearsay in a court, but on a message board, I'll take it.

(11-27-2017 05:22 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 05:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 03:01 PM)Ourland Wrote:  From my understanding, there were various motivations for people who signed that letter. Not everyone signed it out of support for or only in support of DB.

Have you seen this letter?

For that matter, do you know anyone who would say under oath, "I've seen the letter"?

So far, I haven't met anyone who is willing to say they've actually seen it.

I have not. But I do know numerous people who read it and/or signed it.

Thanks -- I just hadn't seen those posts.

Owl40 says he has seen the letter -- the first (and so far only) person I know of who has said so.

For such an influential letter, I'm surprised it has been so closely guarded.

Many who say they have seen it put a slightly different spin on it however.

It matters what the letter says.

If it said, we'd withdraw our funding for the EZF if he is ever fired, that's one thing.
If it said, waiting one year to 'see' is a small price relative to the cost of a buy-out that is something else.

Obviously I've picked two extremes and the truth is almost assuredly somewhere in the middle.

Bailiff deserved to be treated with the utmost respect and I'm fine that it happened that way. I wish we had money to throw around like other places but we just don't. It cost us 'something' to keep him a year... whether it was worth it is a matter of perspective and opinion and not fact.

(11-28-2017 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Many who say they have seen it put a slightly different spin on it however.

It matters what the letter says.

If it said, we'd withdraw our funding for the EZF if he is ever fired, that's one thing.
If it said, waiting one year to 'see' is a small price relative to the cost of a buy-out that is something else.

Obviously I've picked two extremes and the truth is almost assuredly somewhere in the middle.

Bailiff deserved to be treated with the utmost respect and I'm fine that it happened that way. I wish we had money to throw around like other places but we just don't. It cost us 'something' to keep him a year... whether it was worth it is a matter of perspective and opinion and not fact.

It is interesting that we've seen no report so far that mentions a buyout. In all other coach fires, the buyout amount is usually front and center in the announcement.

(11-28-2017 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Many who say they have seen it put a slightly different spin on it however.

It matters what the letter says.

If it said, we'd withdraw our funding for the EZF if he is ever fired, that's one thing.
If it said, waiting one year to 'see' is a small price relative to the cost of a buy-out that is something else.

Obviously I've picked two extremes and the truth is almost assuredly somewhere in the middle.

Bailiff deserved to be treated with the utmost respect and I'm fine that it happened that way. I wish we had money to throw around like other places but we just don't. It cost us 'something' to keep him a year... whether it was worth it is a matter of perspective and opinion and not fact.

It is interesting that we've seen no report so far that mentions a buyout. In all other coach fires, the buyout amount is usually front and center in the announcement.

It probably wasn't a sensational amount.

(11-28-2017 05:58 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 05:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 05:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Many who say they have seen it put a slightly different spin on it however.

It matters what the letter says.

If it said, we'd withdraw our funding for the EZF if he is ever fired, that's one thing.
If it said, waiting one year to 'see' is a small price relative to the cost of a buy-out that is something else.

Obviously I've picked two extremes and the truth is almost assuredly somewhere in the middle.

Bailiff deserved to be treated with the utmost respect and I'm fine that it happened that way. I wish we had money to throw around like other places but we just don't. It cost us 'something' to keep him a year... whether it was worth it is a matter of perspective and opinion and not fact.

It is interesting that we've seen no report so far that mentions a buyout. In all other coach fires, the buyout amount is usually front and center in the announcement.

It probably wasn't a sensational amount.

""We will fulfill the contractual obligations that we have to Coach Bailiff," Karlgaard said of Bailiff's contract."

http://www.chron.com/sports/rice/article...385948.php

If we owed him a milllion, I suspect we paid him (or WILL pay him) that or something very close to it. PERHAPS the reason for the 'firing' rather than a resignation is that there was no reduction in the amount, and I don't blame David for that (if it happened). He negotiated in good faith and was prepared to fulfill the contract.

Not starting any rumors so don't anyone pick up on that and say something ugly... just speculating and thinking how I would handle it.

(11-29-2017 01:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If we owed him a milllion, I suspect we paid him (or WILL pay him) that or something very close to it. PERHAPS the reason for the 'firing' rather than a resignation is that there was no reduction in the amount, and I don't blame David for that (if it happened). He negotiated in good faith and was prepared to fulfill the contract.
Not starting any rumors so don't anyone pick up on that and say something ugly... just speculating and thinking how I would handle it.

He has every right to demand that he be paid the full amount specified in the contract (which presumably specified a buyout amount in the event of early termination by either party). That's not being greedy or anything improper, that's just expecting Rice to fulfill its legal obligations.

It sounds like they reached complete agreement. If that means that Rice pays him every cent required by the contract, or if that means that they parties negotiated something else in good faith, it matters not. Some of you might be surprised to find out what can be negotiated in those situations, particularly if both parties approach the negotiations in good faith.