(12-04-2017 09:02 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:48 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:06 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:34 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Kurt Roper would have been pretty exciting coming out of his time at Duke. Not sure how to weigh what he has done the past 4 post-Duke seasons versus what he did before. JK has made good hires so far and I have certainly been an advocate of hiring alums into the staff.

He has had two major hires and he's batting .500. Langley has been outstanding; Rhoades was a waste of three years.

Rhoades was anything but a waste of 3 years. He helped change the culture of MBB, and did bring in Pera.

You people are absolutely delusional. The season before Rhoades (with Braun), Rice was #299 in Pomeroy; as of this morning, after Rhoades "helped change the culture of MBB," Rice is #290.

First of all, a lot of season left. Second, the attrition is going to have an impact that can't be ignored; let's see where we are at the end of this season and the next one before we make any kind of judgment.

+1. Pera has done a phenominal job on the recruiting front. Given the extent of attrition, what exactly did you expect from this season? If only Parish could be eligible this year, the fall-off from last season would not have been as severe. But to claim Rhoades was not a quality hire at the time he was hired is revisionist thinking.

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:05 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm kind of shocked that we're seeing posters seem to be down on the fact that we may get a Rice alum as a head coach...

OCs can be an easy scapegoat for offensive struggles, and I doubt anyone on this board has enough knowledge of SC's team to know whether or not Roper or Muschamp or personnel or whatever are the reason for the offensive struggles. Just as we don't really know whether or not Roper was responsible for all of the offensive successes there were when he was coaching at Duke with Cutcliffe.

I agree that if Roper gets the hire it is not an obvious, knock this out of the park hire, but I will be more than happy to have a new HC with SEC and ACC coaching experience, and experience working within the confines of an elite academic institution.

Understand your points and agree with them to a certain extent. I guess my concerns are two-fold. One, is Roper's previous success a reflection of him or the guy he was working under (Cutcliffe)? Second, being a Rice alum, will he challenge the status quo enough? Because the status quo isn't working now and won't work consistently enough in the future.

Yeah - it's hard to tell who/what was responsible for the success then failures of the offenses he presided over.

And I don't see him being a Rice alum being a detriment to affecting the status quo - I think it's more likely it helps break it. Roper has had enough non-Rice experience to know what successful football institutions look like (Tennessee, Ole Miss, UF) to want to put Rice on the right path, while having enough of an affinity for the university to be willing to stick it out and see the process through, not cut and run at the first chance he has. I mean, why would we think a former football player who basically had to deal with Rice not caring about his team want to make sure Rice continues down that path?

Good point on the 2nd one. I hope you are right.

formerowl may be correct, but worth noting that none of his past posts that I scanned suggested he has any insider credentials. No indicia of credibility.

Also, as suggested by Walt, I think Rhoades getting the program to where it was last season will make the program better in 2018-19. This year is tough with all the transfers. I will take 3 years of Rhoades over 3 years of a Bailiffesque basketball coach.

(12-04-2017 09:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  formerowl may be correct, but worth noting that none of his past posts that I scanned suggested he has any insider credentials. No indicia of credibility.

You are correct sir. But I am also correct.

And those who post about Rice getting "transfers". Yes, I agree that would help, but the admissions office really doesn't care about football and getting transfers are HIGHLY unlikely!

(12-04-2017 09:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:02 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:48 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:06 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:34 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  He has had two major hires and he's batting .500. Langley has been outstanding; Rhoades was a waste of three years.

Rhoades was anything but a waste of 3 years. He helped change the culture of MBB, and did bring in Pera.

You people are absolutely delusional. The season before Rhoades (with Braun), Rice was #299 in Pomeroy; as of this morning, after Rhoades "helped change the culture of MBB," Rice is #290.

First of all, a lot of season left. Second, the attrition is going to have an impact that can't be ignored; let's see where we are at the end of this season and the next one before we make any kind of judgment.

+1. Pera has done a phenominal job on the recruiting front. Given the extent of attrition, what exactly did you expect from this season? If only Parish could be eligible this year, the fall-off from last season would not have been as severe. But to claim Rhoades was not a quality hire at the time he was hired is revisionist thinking.

Rhoades was a brilliant hire at the time. He did a magnificent job while he was here. But in the end, he left the program little better than the way he found it. Pera came in to find a cupboard almost as bare as the one Rhoades found. He apparently built a sense of belonging to himself and not to Rice. I do not think WRC is knocking Pera.

(12-04-2017 09:24 AM)formerowl Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:20 AM)mrbig Wrote:  formerowl may be correct, but worth noting that none of his past posts that I scanned suggested he has any insider credentials. No indicia of credibility.

You are correct sir. But I am also correct.

And those who post about Rice getting "transfers". Yes, I agree that would help, but the admissions office really doesn't care about football and getting transfers are HIGHLY unlikely!

Rice athletics often gets transfers.

When asked last night about whether Roper would be the offensive coordinator for the Gamecocks bowl game, Muschamp offered an overwhelming strong "Sure." That's according to this Columbia, SC newspaper article from last night: http://www.thestate.com/sports/college/u...66139.html .

This can be interpreted a number of different ways, but the quotes in the article are awfully perfunctory. Talk about coachspeak.

I will say this - the perceived quality of your favorite team's offensive coordinator is often dependent on the quality of the QB running the plays. That could be a reflection of your ability to coach up (or not), or of not recruiting the right kind of QB.

USC's offense has actually marginally improved each year from the depths of 2015, if you can believe that - 2016 was better than 2015 (before Roper), and 2017 is better than last year. Still not great, and I understand why USC fans think they're entitled to better. But they should be careful what they wish for, because it's not exactly a hotbed for recruiting. (I say that as an interested party, as one of my sisters graduated from there. So I do keep an eye on things there.)

And in looking at Florida, Roper improved that offense slightly from 2013 to 2014, and it regressed some the following year under McElwain.

Not trying to talk anyone into him, but just noting looking at some of the raw statistics. Should probably look at the S&P numbers, too, but don't have time for that right now.

(12-04-2017 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm kind of shocked that we're seeing posters seem to be down on the fact that we may get a Rice alum as a head coach...
OCs can be an easy scapegoat for offensive struggles, and I doubt anyone on this board has enough knowledge of SC's team to know whether or not Roper or Muschamp or personnel or whatever are the reason for the offensive struggles. Just as we don't really know whether or not Roper was responsible for all of the offensive successes there were when he was coaching at Duke with Cutcliffe.
I agree that if Roper gets the hire it is not an obvious, knock this out of the park hire, but I will be more than happy to have a new HC with SEC and ACC coaching experience, and experience working within the confines of an elite academic institution.

Whether or not Roper was responsible for the offensive success at Duke under Cutcliffe, would we not expect that he learned a lot from the experience? I mean, he's smart, he went to Rice.

I would consider his time under Cutcliffe as more indicative of his offensive prowess than his time under Muschamp, because Muschamp has such a defense-oriented approach that he would likely have shackled the offensive side of the ball somewhat. Think of Muschamp as a philosophical twin of David Bailiff, except his defenses actually know how to play defense. I do find it interesting that Muschamp brought him back to the staff at South Carolina after having him at Florida. And while he took some of the same kind of heat at Florida as he did at South Carolina, it may be significant to note that the Florida offense got worse after he left, under offensive guru Jim McElwain.

What I think will be most interesting is what kind of staff he assembles. He's had two tours with Muschamp, so he should be plugged in with a lot of bright defensive coaches. On the offensive side, I wonder if he could or would try to get his brother away from Duke. We probably don't pay as much (or maybe we do for a coordinator) but blood is sometimes thicker than money. Or maybe Zac could suggest an up-and-coming Duke staffer who would be ready to come here and take over the offense.

Roper is not a home run hire, but we probably aren't in position to attract a home run hitter right now. With a HC who gets Rice and has experience winning in the SEC and with an academic school in the ACC, a DC off the Muschamp tree, and an OC off the Cutcliffe tree, I'd take my chances, particularly against CUSA opponents. Add some of the changes being pushed by the 25(0) crowd, I think he can be a ground rule double. I would still think we could win 8 next year.

I'll be very disappointed if Kurt Roper is named head coach. I hope this isn't true.

(12-04-2017 09:17 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 09:05 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm kind of shocked that we're seeing posters seem to be down on the fact that we may get a Rice alum as a head coach...

OCs can be an easy scapegoat for offensive struggles, and I doubt anyone on this board has enough knowledge of SC's team to know whether or not Roper or Muschamp or personnel or whatever are the reason for the offensive struggles. Just as we don't really know whether or not Roper was responsible for all of the offensive successes there were when he was coaching at Duke with Cutcliffe.

I agree that if Roper gets the hire it is not an obvious, knock this out of the park hire, but I will be more than happy to have a new HC with SEC and ACC coaching experience, and experience working within the confines of an elite academic institution.

Understand your points and agree with them to a certain extent. I guess my concerns are two-fold. One, is Roper's previous success a reflection of him or the guy he was working under (Cutcliffe)? Second, being a Rice alum, will he challenge the status quo enough? Because the status quo isn't working now and won't work consistently enough in the future.

Yeah - it's hard to tell who/what was responsible for the success then failures of the offenses he presided over.

And I don't see him being a Rice alum being a detriment to affecting the status quo - I think it's more likely it helps break it. Roper has had enough non-Rice experience to know what successful football institutions look like (Tennessee, Ole Miss, UF) to want to put Rice on the right path, while having enough of an affinity for the university to be willing to stick it out and see the process through, not cut and run at the first chance he has. I mean, why would we think a former football player who basically had to deal with Rice not caring about his team want to make sure Rice continues down that path?

Good point on the 2nd one. I hope you are right.

Keep in mind also that Roper was recruited to Rice in the fall of 1991 after a year in which Rice went 5-6 and came within a Greg Willig pass on a two point try to having Rice's first winning season since the 1960s, and then was a player when Rice did have two winning seasons and beat Texas. So he has been through a "culture change" and increased expectations at Rice. As noted above, I lived next to him for a year at Rice so I'm undoubtedly biased, but other than not having coached exceptionally successful teams the last few years, he checks all the boxes (except for head coaching experience).

And a mid-40s guy is not really comparable to late 50s (or early 60s) guys like Braun and Greenspan who were "on their way down."

Idle speculation, but is Jeremy Izzo as DC and Jeremy Bates as OC out of the question? They both played with Roper. I don't know what a Texans special teams coordinator and a Jets quaterbacks coach make, but if his salary for HC is more reasonable than others might be, there might be money left for good coordinator hires. They come with their own risks as not having had specific college coaching experience (except for one year for Bates) or coordinator experience.

(12-04-2017 09:51 AM)FresnoTXOwl Wrote:  Keep in mind also that Roper was recruited to Rice in the fall of 1991 after a year in which Rice went 5-6 and came within a Greg Willig pass on a two point try to having Rice's first winning season since the 1960s, and then was a player when Rice did have two winning seasons and beat Texas. So he has been through a "culture change" and increased expectations at Rice. As noted above, I lived next to him for a year at Rice so I'm undoubtedly biased, but other than not having coached exceptionally successful teams the last few years, he checks all the boxes (except for head coaching experience).
And a mid-40s guy is not really comparable to late 50s (or early 60s) guys like Braun and Greenspan who were "on their way down."
Idle speculation, but is Jeremy Izzo as DC and Jeremy Bates as OC out of the question? They both played with Roper. I don't know what a Texans special teams coordinator and a Jets quaterbacks coach make, but if his salary for HC is more reasonable than others might be, there might be money left for good coordinator hires. They come with their own risks as not having had specific college coaching experience (except for one year for Bates) or coordinator experience.

If it is Roper, I think the whole key will be what kind of staff he builds. I would hope it is a bunch of 30-something and 40-something aggressive young guns.

I think you mean Larry Izzo. Bates is an interesting name. He would add a lot of credibility. As would Zac, if he could get either one.

One thing that I think Roper does get is that recruiting, recruiting, recruiting is the name of the game. I would expect him hire a staff that can and will recruit. From Duke, he knows what it takes to recruit to an academic school, albeit one in a somewhat different universe.

I would expect the defensive staff to come largely from the Muschamp tree, and the offensive staff to come largely from the Cutcliffe tree, with some people with Rice connections on both sides of the ball.

The football program dug a hole. We continued digging, hoping that DB would find a way to fill in the hole. It did not happen; it just got worse.

I think we need a revolutionary coach to fill in the hole and start to build a hill. It would be a risky hire, but our past actions have put us in a position where it is necessary. Roper may not be a status quo man, but he certainly does not seem to qualify as "revolutionary." Maybe he would have been a good hire in less extreme times (and maybe I will be wrong and he will be great now) but he does not seem to be what the times demand.

(12-04-2017 10:04 AM)Ranger Wrote:  The football program dug a hole. We continued digging, hoping that DB would find a way to fill in the hole. It did not happen; it just got worse.

I think we need a revolutionary coach to fill in the hole and start to build a hill. It would be a risky hire, but our past actions have put us in a position where it is necessary. Roper may not be a status quo man, but he certainly does not seem to qualify as "revolutionary." Maybe he would have been a good hire in less extreme times (and maybe I will be wrong and he will be great now) but he does not seem to be what the times demand.

What does a revolutionary hire look like though? Who currently fits that mold that has coaching experience at the D1 (FBS or FCS) level? And why doesn't Roper fit the bill?

If true:

(1) I suspect Roper knows RUOWLS, Hambone and NightOwl as well as many other former players. Hopefully, he reaches out to all/many of them
including that someone coaching for those horrible red people.

(2) What I really like is that not only is he an alum, he was also here during a period where there was a turn and some success in the program under Fred and Ken. And during the SWC.

(3) Given we are playing Prairie View the first game, one would hope that his first game won't be like the last 3 coaches (Tulane loss by Ken, UH loss by the Toad and $.05 St by DB). Wonder if we could've beaten PVAMU this year?

(12-04-2017 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:04 AM)Ranger Wrote:  The football program dug a hole. We continued digging, hoping that DB would find a way to fill in the hole. It did not happen; it just got worse.

I think we need a revolutionary coach to fill in the hole and start to build a hill. It would be a risky hire, but our past actions have put us in a position where it is necessary. Roper may not be a status quo man, but he certainly does not seem to qualify as "revolutionary." Maybe he would have been a good hire in less extreme times (and maybe I will be wrong and he will be great now) but he does not seem to be what the times demand.

What does a revolutionary hire look like though? Who currently fits that mold that has coaching experience at the D1 (FBS or FCS) level? And why doesn't Roper fit the bill?

Why are we so obsessed with coaching experience? The Yankees ... a team with so so much more to lose than Rice went out and hired Aaron Boone - with a grand total of zero minutes of coaching experience. Not saying it's a home run necessarily, but if they can do it.. we certainly don't need to be hamstrung by the party line.

Zidane's only coaching experience was Real Madrid B team before taking the reins. He only won back to back champions league.

To me that's far more unconventional than starting with the usual must-have-D1-experience we usually trot out.

(12-04-2017 10:04 AM)Ranger Wrote:  The football program dug a hole. We continued digging, hoping that DB would find a way to fill in the hole. It did not happen; it just got worse.
I think we need a revolutionary coach to fill in the hole and start to build a hill. It would be a risky hire, but our past actions have put us in a position where it is necessary. Roper may not be a status quo man, but he certainly does not seem to qualify as "revolutionary." Maybe he would have been a good hire in less extreme times (and maybe I will be wrong and he will be great now) but he does not seem to be what the times demand.

What do you mean by a "revolutionary" hire? Somebody like the HS coach in Arkansas who never punts?

I don't see the need for going that far outside the box, although I would support it if we went that way. I really think the reason we have been so bad is poor coaching. David had a reputation that his teams played hard but were sloppy and ill-disciplined, and that's pretty much what we saw. We have had basic and critical weaknesses--such as poor special teams and a secondary vulnerable to the deep ball--that have gone unaddressed and uncorrected for years. I just think we need someone that will do a competent job of scheming and preparation, plus turn recruiting up a notch or two. And somebody who will stop making excuses.

I don't think we need revolutionary. I just think we need competent.

(12-04-2017 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm kind of shocked that we're seeing posters seem to be down on the fact that we may get a Rice alum as a head coach...
OCs can be an easy scapegoat for offensive struggles, and I doubt anyone on this board has enough knowledge of SC's team to know whether or not Roper or Muschamp or personnel or whatever are the reason for the offensive struggles. Just as we don't really know whether or not Roper was responsible for all of the offensive successes there were when he was coaching at Duke with Cutcliffe.
I agree that if Roper gets the hire it is not an obvious, knock this out of the park hire, but I will be more than happy to have a new HC with SEC and ACC coaching experience, and experience working within the confines of an elite academic institution.

Whether or not Roper was responsible for the offensive success at Duke under Sutcliffe, would we not expect that he learned a lot from the experience? I mean, he's smart, he went to Rice.

I would consider his time under Cutcliffe as more indicative of his offensive prowess than his time under Muschamp, because Muschamp has such a defense-oriented approach that he would likely have shackled the offensive side of the ball somewhat. Think of Muschamp as a philosophical twin of David Bailiff, except his defenses actually know how to play defense. I do find it interesting that Muschamp brought him back to the staff at South Carolina after having him at Florida. And while he took some of the same kind of heat at Florida as he did at South Carolina, it may be significant to note that the Florida offense got worse after he left, under offensive guru Jim McElwain.

What I think will be most interesting is what kind of staff he assembles. He's had two tours with Muschamp, so he should be plugged in with a lot of bright defensive coaches. On the offensive side, I wonder if he could or would try to get his brother away from Duke. We probably don't pay as much (or maybe we do for a coordinator) but blood is sometimes thicker than money. Or maybe Zac could suggest an up-and-coming Duke staffer who would be ready to come here and take over the offense.

Roper is not a home run hire, but we probably aren't in position to attract a home run hitter right now. With a HC who gets Rice and has experience winning in the SEC and with an academic school in the ACC, a DC off the Muschamp tree, and an OC off the Cutcliffe tree, I'd take my chances, particularly against CUSA opponents. Add some of the changes being pushed by the 25(0) crowd, I think he can be a ground rule double. I would still think we could win 8 next year.

My thoughts exactly if Roper, is in fact, the selection. Let him deal with "getting Rice" and changing things. As long as he brings in some hungry and talented coordinators and coaches, I'm OK with it. Was pushing for one of the Stanford coordinators, Jasper or Houston, but willing to see if this pans out, and hopeful it leads to meaningful and sustained change and success. As someone else pointed out - JK's choice for football HC is a big choice for a myriad of reasons.

(12-04-2017 10:08 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 10:04 AM)Ranger Wrote:  The football program dug a hole. We continued digging, hoping that DB would find a way to fill in the hole. It did not happen; it just got worse.

I think we need a revolutionary coach to fill in the hole and start to build a hill. It would be a risky hire, but our past actions have put us in a position where it is necessary. Roper may not be a status quo man, but he certainly does not seem to qualify as "revolutionary." Maybe he would have been a good hire in less extreme times (and maybe I will be wrong and he will be great now) but he does not seem to be what the times demand.

What does a revolutionary hire look like though? Who currently fits that mold that has coaching experience at the D1 (FBS or FCS) level? And why doesn't Roper fit the bill?

I had been hoping for Vladimir "Tex" Lenin. His dialectic defense and vanguard offense would have dominated CUSA.

(12-04-2017 10:12 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  If true:

(1) I suspect Roper knows RUOWLS, Hambone and NightOwl as well as many other former players. Hopefully, he reaches out to all/many of them
including that someone coaching for those horrible red people.

(2) What I really like is that not only is he an alum, he was also here during a period where there was a turn and some success in the program under Fred and Ken. And during the SWC.

(3) Given we are playing Prairie View the first game, one would hope that his first game won't be like the last 3 coaches (Tulane loss by Fred, UH loss by the Toad and $.05 St by DB). Wonder if we would be PVAMU this year?

Tulane was Ken, not Fred. Fred started with a win over SMU.

(12-04-2017 10:15 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Zidane's only coaching experience was Real Madrid B team before taking the reins. He only won back to back champions league.

I'm not sure taking over Rice football and Real Madrid are very similar. Well, other than they both start with "R".