CSNbbs

Full Version: note to Dr. K: Will Muschamp now available end of this season HFC
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(11-18-2014 10:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I get three responses telling me what the next level is with three different definitions of "next level". I also note one objection to the question.
I have been assuming Owl69's definition. I don't know who can get us there, I am not sure if it is even still possible.
Owl69, penalties has been suggested as one measure of preparation and/or execution. I see where on the NCAA listing of fewest penalty yards rice is #33. Alabama #29, less than 1 yard apart in average. This doesn't sound like a one-off to me.
I am tired of the constant refrain of "he can't get us there" when we have no consistent idea of where there is. Let's define it, and write it into the next contract, whether that contract is with Musgrave, leech, Bailiff, whoever. THEN we can start holding feet to the fire.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).

We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.

The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).

I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

I'm pretty sure it is entirely fair. I considered two of the definitions to be steps on the way to the third one, and lots of people did not volunteer their opinions of what constitutes the "next level". Getting into a P5 conference would match my opinion of the next level.

If what we want, and the reason to fire Bailiff, is to get to the next level, let's define it and put in the next coach's contract. Else we will be doing all this forever.


Who are we kidding? Bailiff is not going to get fired for that reason and no coach worth his salt would ever accept such an offer with that provision. Moreover, as much as you and I have disagreed about Bailiff, I don't think he alone can get us to that proverbial "next level." Several other criteria including funding, facilities and attendance would have to improve dramatically. Some of those factors would be helped by winning consistently, but others would require a re-ordering of priorities. Good luck with that.
(11-18-2014 10:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I get three responses telling me what the next level is with three different definitions of "next level". I also note one objection to the question.
I have been assuming Owl69's definition. I don't know who can get us there, I am not sure if it is even still possible.
Owl69, penalties has been suggested as one measure of preparation and/or execution. I see where on the NCAA listing of fewest penalty yards rice is #33. Alabama #29, less than 1 yard apart in average. This doesn't sound like a one-off to me.
I am tired of the constant refrain of "he can't get us there" when we have no consistent idea of where there is. Let's define it, and write it into the next contract, whether that contract is with Musgrave, leech, Bailiff, whoever. THEN we can start holding feet to the fire.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).

We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.

The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).

I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

I'm pretty sure it is entirely fair. I considered two of the definitions to be steps on the way to the third one, and lots of people did not volunteer their opinions of what constitutes the "next level". Getting into a P5 conference would match my opinion of the next level.

If what we want, and the reason to fire Bailiff, is to get to the next level, let's define it and put in the next coach's contract. Else we will be doing all this forever.

It feels like we HAVE been doing this forever! Can't we just concentrate on beating UTEP and LaTech and going 8-4, get a good bowl game and then start this theoretical crap all over again??
(11-18-2014 09:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).
We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.
The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).
I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

There were some differences in particulars at the margins, but I would contend that any result that achieved any one of the three would probably be a considerable favorite to attain the other two. Maybe the specifics of where we end up are different, but I don't think there's much difference in the direction of travel. Certainly none of them fit the historic mantras of Rice athletics--"losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

In particular, Walt's perennial top-20, located in the Houston market, would be a lock to move up to P-5.

I agree Walt's goal is lofty. Not sure we were ever there even under Jess. But to tie back to the OP, neither was Florida before Spurrier and Urban. Old SEC joke, until Spurrier came back to Florida Field as coach, "What do the football teams of Notre Dame, Southern California, and Florida have in common?" Answer, "None of them have ever won an SEC championship."

??? I truly suggest you guys reread my posts on the subject. I NEVER said perennial Top 20 or Top 25. What I said was that while some may have that as their aspirations, I don't believe that's realistic for football (and, perhaps, Mens basketball, as well). Rather, I very clearly defined the "next level" as perennial Top 50 - 60 caliber club....that consistently beats teams worse than them...blows out teams ranked outside the Top 90 (and almost never loses to them, especially at home!)....and legitimately competes against Top 25 - 35 caliber programs (keeping games close), while copping those much-needed, occassional "signature wins". That's what will improve the national perception of our program, and position us as favorably as possible for the next round of realignment (which is our stated goal).

Since in his 8 years here, including his winning seasons and bowl season, Bailiff is now 0 - 25 against Top 50 caliber teams, and has only had his team prepared to compete in 2 of those 25 games, I have absolutely no confidence that he can take us to that next level. Whether anyone can remains to be seen; but I don't believe Bailiff can...and, IMO, it's now or never to get ourselves dressed up for the next realignment. We have an ambitious and aggressive AD who has gained both the Administration's and BOT's support, and who has already made strides in restructuring the athletic department for the better. The stars are align....but without the football program taking it to the next level, we'll never become a viable P5 candidate.

I am been absolutely consistent on this definition (for me) over the past several years.
(11-18-2014 10:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I get three responses telling me what the next level is with three different definitions of "next level". I also note one objection to the question.
I have been assuming Owl69's definition. I don't know who can get us there, I am not sure if it is even still possible.
Owl69, penalties has been suggested as one measure of preparation and/or execution. I see where on the NCAA listing of fewest penalty yards rice is #33. Alabama #29, less than 1 yard apart in average. This doesn't sound like a one-off to me.
I am tired of the constant refrain of "he can't get us there" when we have no consistent idea of where there is. Let's define it, and write it into the next contract, whether that contract is with Musgrave, leech, Bailiff, whoever. THEN we can start holding feet to the fire.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).

We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.

The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).

I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

I'm pretty sure it is entirely fair. I considered two of the definitions to be steps on the way to the third one, and lots of people did not volunteer their opinions of what constitutes the "next level". Getting into a P5 conference would match my opinion of the next level.

If what we want, and the reason to fire Bailiff, is to get to the next level, let's define it and put in the next coach's contract. Else we will be doing all this forever.

Per the bold above-- NO, that's not the next level. Getting invited into a P5 is the positive result and goal and hope once we "get to the next level"....but we have to get to that level as a prerequisite-- but not a guarantee in the slightest-- for becoming a viable and attractive candidate.
(11-19-2014 12:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).
We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.
The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).
I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

There were some differences in particulars at the margins, but I would contend that any result that achieved any one of the three would probably be a considerable favorite to attain the other two. Maybe the specifics of where we end up are different, but I don't think there's much difference in the direction of travel. Certainly none of them fit the historic mantras of Rice athletics--"losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

In particular, Walt's perennial top-20, located in the Houston market, would be a lock to move up to P-5.

I agree Walt's goal is lofty. Not sure we were ever there even under Jess. But to tie back to the OP, neither was Florida before Spurrier and Urban. Old SEC joke, until Spurrier came back to Florida Field as coach, "What do the football teams of Notre Dame, Southern California, and Florida have in common?" Answer, "None of them have ever won an SEC championship."

??? I truly suggest you guys reread my posts on the subject. I NEVER said perennial Top 20 or Top 25. What I said was that while some my have that as their aspirations, I don't believe that's realistic for football (and, perhaps, Mens basketball, as well). Rather, I very clearly defined the "next level" at perennial Top 50 - 60 caliber club....that consistently beat teams worse than them....and competed against Top 25 - 35 caliber programs (keeping games close), while copping those much-needed, occassional "signature wins". That's what will improve the national perception of our program, and position us as favorably as possible for the next round of realignment (which is our stated goal).

Which is my point about there being subtle differences. My post quoted you accurately (i.e., consistent Top 50, periodic (not perennial) Top 25). I had gone back to look before I typed.

Owl 69/70/75 misquoted you (perennial Top 20), but I suspect that was a typo on his part.

That's part of the point I was making. Everyone seems the goals as 'the same', when there are differences.

I think perennial Top 50% (Top 63), Periodic Top 40 . . .

is more achievable in the short term than the perennial Top 50, periodic Top 25.

Not criticizing your goal or desire. Just that we're closer to the first set of targets, and we've NEVER been close to the slightly loftier goals, at least since the big money, TV era began.

I think Bailiff can get us to the first set of goals, assuming we continue to recruit at, or better, than our current level.

There may be a coach that can get us to your goals, but I think our odds of hiring him are 1 in a 100, and our odds of keeping him more than 3 years (Todd Graham with a conscience) are even less.

If we move toward the first set of goals, we will begin to perform better against the Top 25. We've already had improvement, going from not being competitive with P5's to winning some of them (Kansas, Purdue), and going from losing to Troy State and beating a MAC team in the bowls, to losing to an SEC team and beating Air Force.

JMO
Rereading, I actually misread Rick's post restating Walt's position.

But correctly stating Walt's position, I still make the same two points:
1) If we get there, with the Houston TV market (that differentiates us tom Boise) and the academic reputation, we will get a P-5 invite
2) We've never actually been there, even in the Neely years

And no, OO, you don't put something like that in a coach's contract, for any number of reasons, not the least being that it would probably violate NCAA rules.

And as far as OO's point about differences in defining the next level, I don't really see the the differences as substantive because they are pretty much all pointed the same way. It's like a startup business, do you have it made when sales hit $10 million, $11 million, or $12 million? They're different statements, but they all keep you pointed in the same direction. If mine is one of the three formulations you identified, let me just say that I'd be happy with either of the other two, and I strongly suspect that the other two would be happy with mine. That being the case, the differences still seem more superficial than real.

As far as improving recruiting, we're lapping at the heels of Northwestern, Duke, and Vandy now. They're still ahead of us, but not nearly as far as they used to be. Do we really expect to out-recruit them, given their P-5 status? And if they're our ceiling, can we really get to any of the three definitions of "the next level" on recruiting alone? Heck, Duke, Northwestern, and Vandy haven't been to Walt's promised land except for brief periods when they overachieved, usually tied to specific coaches. I agree that the progress to date on the recruiting front has been remarkable. But we're not going to recruit our way into the top 50 or 40 or 25. We're going to have to play our way there by overachieving. And that's what I don't see Bailiff's teams doing. Not yet anyway. I hope it comes, because otherwise I'm very happy with David.

One other thought. I really get tired of the comments about Bailiff's "not wanting" or "not trying" to win. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. In particular, a lot of those comments have been directed toward coaching decisions that were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.
(11-19-2014 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Rereading, I actually misread Rick's post restating Walt's position.

But correctly stating Walt's position, I still make the same two points:
1) If we get there, with the Houston TV market (that differentiates us tom Boise) and the academic reputation, we will get a P-5 invite
2) We've never actually been there, even in the Neely years

And no, OO, you don't put something like that in a coach's contract, for any number of reasons, not the least being that it would probably violate NCAA rules.

And as far as OO's point about differences in defining the next level, I don't really see the the differences as substantive because they are pretty much all pointed the same way. It's like a startup business, do you have it made when sales hit $10 million, $11 million, or $12 million? They're different statements, but they all keep you pointed in the same direction. If mine is one of the three formulations you identified, let me just say that I'd be happy with either of the other two, and I strongly suspect that the other two would be happy with mine. That being the case, the differences still seem more superficial than real.

As far as improving recruiting, we're lapping at the heels of Northwestern, Duke, and Vandy now. They're still ahead of us, but not nearly as far as they used to be. Do we really expect to out-recruit them, given their P-5 status? And if they're our ceiling, can we really get to any of the three definitions of "the next level" on recruiting alone? Heck, Duke, Northwestern, and Vandy haven't been to Walt's promised land except for brief periods when they overachieved, usually tied to specific coaches. I agree that the progress to date on the recruiting front has been remarkable. But we're not going to recruit our way into the top 50 or 40 or 25. We're going to have to play our way there by overachieving. And that's what I don't see Bailiff's teams doing. Not yet anyway. I hope it comes, because otherwise I'm very happy with David.

One other thought. I really get tired of the comments about Bailiff's "not wanting" or "not trying" to win. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. In particular, a lot of those comments have been directed toward coaching decisions that were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

I couldn't agree more with the last statement. I feel like I haven't seen them as frequently which is great, because it was insulting at the minimum to read things like that when they were posted. I tried to regularly call them out because of how ludicrous comments suggesting Bailiff and his staff didn't care, didn't care enough, or didn't have a strong enough desire to win, since I am almost certain Bailiff doesn't end his day early every day and go home and laugh about how he is fleecing the administration. Unless we were going winless every year, I see no evidence to suggest that our performances are indicative of a man lacking desire, just a man who hasn't found a way to go undefeated every year.
(11-19-2014 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]And as far as OO's point about differences in defining the next level, I don't really see the the differences as substantive because they are pretty much all pointed the same way. It's like a startup business, do you have it made when sales hit $10 million, $11 million, or $12 million? They're different statements, but they all keep you pointed in the same direction. If mine is one of the three formulations you identified, let me just say that I'd be happy with either of the other two, and I strongly suspect that the other two would be happy with mine. That being the case, the differences still seem more superficial than real.

I am sure that the others would be happy with yours, since yours encompasses theirs. I see it as like one would be happy with $100M in sales, another wants to achieve 50 branch outlets, and you want to be one of the Dow stocks. If you reach your goal you would have certainly achieved the others long since.

Quote:One other thought. I really get tired of the comments about Bailiff's "not wanting" or "not trying" to win. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. In particular, a lot of those comments have been directed toward coaching decisions that were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

Thanks. I remember a few years back there was an ongoing theme on here that Bailiff AND HIS STAFF were not trying, since he had a long term contract and would be getting paid. it didn't make any sense, but when I protested, I was slapped with the "OK with mediocrity" label. Now that we have achieved a level of mediocrity, it seems odd to me that some people would be satisfied with just a little bit more. Top 50 - not enough for me. Top 50 should be a bad year, not a goal.

The question remains, wherever "there" is, can Bailiff get us there? And while it cannot be put into a contract, nothing wrong with JK (and the fans) articulating to Bailiff and/or his successor what we expect.

Firing Bailiff will turn out to be one of two things - either the worst move since the forced retirement of Jess Neely/hiring of Bo Hagen or the best move since the hiring of Fred Goldsmith.
(11-19-2014 12:18 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 12:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).
We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.
The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).
I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

There were some differences in particulars at the margins, but I would contend that any result that achieved any one of the three would probably be a considerable favorite to attain the other two. Maybe the specifics of where we end up are different, but I don't think there's much difference in the direction of travel. Certainly none of them fit the historic mantras of Rice athletics--"losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

In particular, Walt's perennial top-20, located in the Houston market, would be a lock to move up to P-5.

I agree Walt's goal is lofty. Not sure we were ever there even under Jess. But to tie back to the OP, neither was Florida before Spurrier and Urban. Old SEC joke, until Spurrier came back to Florida Field as coach, "What do the football teams of Notre Dame, Southern California, and Florida have in common?" Answer, "None of them have ever won an SEC championship."

??? I truly suggest you guys reread my posts on the subject. I NEVER said perennial Top 20 or Top 25. What I said was that while some my have that as their aspirations, I don't believe that's realistic for football (and, perhaps, Mens basketball, as well). Rather, I very clearly defined the "next level" at perennial Top 50 - 60 caliber club....that consistently beat teams worse than them....and competed against Top 25 - 35 caliber programs (keeping games close), while copping those much-needed, occassional "signature wins". That's what will improve the national perception of our program, and position us as favorably as possible for the next round of realignment (which is our stated goal).

Which is my point about there being subtle differences.
Owl 69/70/75 misquoted you (perennial Top 20), but I suspect that was a typo on his part.

That's part of the point I was making. Everyone seems the goals as 'the same', when there are differences.My post quoted you accurately (i.e., consistent Top 50, periodic (not perennial) Top 25). I had gone back to look before I typed.


I think perennial Top 50% (Top 63), Periodic Top 40 . . .

is more achievable in the short term than the perennial Top 50, periodic Top 25.

Not criticizing your goal or desire. Just that we're closer to the first set of targets, and we've NEVER been close to the slightly loftier goals, at least since the big money, TV era began.

I think Bailiff can get us to the first set of goals, assuming we continue to recruit at, or better, than our current level.

There may be a coach that can get us to your goals, but I think our odds of hiring him are 1 in a 100, and our odds of keeping him more than 3 years (Todd Graham with a conscience) are even less.

If we move toward the first set of goals, we will begin to perform better against the Top 25. We've already had improvement, going from not being competitive with P5's to winning some of them (Kansas, Purdue), and going from losing to Troy State and beating a MAC team in the bowls, to losing to an SEC team and beating Air Force.

JMO

No, Rick-- you did NOT quote me accurately. Look again. I said perennial Top 50 and occassionally beat a Top 25; NOT "periodic Top 25". Here's the actual original post of mine in response to OO's question...

Quote:Buddy, I think "getting to the next level" is pretty well defined here. Must we have a circular argument every single time someone says something critical of one of our programs or a coaching staff? Bailiff has taken us from being a laughing stock and amongst the worst 25 teams in the country to a moderate level of respectability. We're a Top 60 - 85 team that can usually beat teams ranked outside the Top 85, but that cannot compete against teams better than us, and certainly not against teams ranked inside the Top 50. That assessment is reality, whether you like the tone or not.

Taking us to the next level would be getting the program to where we are at worst a perennial Top 50 team (though some here think Top 35 is possible)-- a program that almost always beats teams worse than them, and can not only compete for 3 - 4 quarters against Top 25 caliber opponents, but occasionally gets the much-needed signature win. This is what is required to improve the national perception of our program, and to get us considered as a viable P5 candidate for the next round of realignment, which I believe is and should be our ultimate goal. From what I've seen the past 8 years-- which, IMO, is more than enough accumulated evidence and experience, Bailiff simply is not that person.

...so if you're going to go back to my post to accurately quote me, try being accurate instead of continuing to twist what I actually said.

I, for one, do not believe Top 25 - 35 in football is realistic given our academic requirements and current conference affiliation. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Bailiff can ever get us there. Heck, we have not won a single game against a Top 50 (let alone Top 25) team during the 8-year Bailiff era (out of 25 such games), and have only competed in two of those games. So do tell-- what gives you confidence that Bailiff can suddenly and miraculously get us to the Top 50 level when we haven't even be able to compete against such teams even in our best seasons under Bailiff?

You talk about improvement-- so how to you reconcile that with our recent total embarrassments against Mississippi State, Notre Dame, A&M and Marshall? Terrific that we can now beat P5 teams that are ranked worse than us, but is that really a sign of improvement? Again, I've been the first to admit that Bailiff has turned around the program, and moved us from laughing stock to a modicum of respectability, but the reality is that much of that improved winning is due to being in a watered down conference, and playing only 2 (vs. 3 or 4) body bag games to start the season.
(11-19-2014 03:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One other thought. I really get tired of the comments about Bailiff's "not wanting" or "not trying" to win. I don't think anything could be further from the truth. In particular, a lot of those comments have been directed toward coaching decisions that were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances.

I, for one, have never said or insinuated that Bailiff does not want or is not trying to win; I agree such comments are absurd. However, what I have said after watching the games over the years and hearing his public comments both before and after games, is that he "accepts losing". There's a BIG difference. Unlike Toad and, more importantly, almost all elite college coaches, David does not take losses as hard as others; he tolerates them. Of course, we're going to lose games, but if you're going to aspire to be a Top 50 caliber program, IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses. It's a mindset and a philosophy that rubs off on players, and affects motivation.
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses.

People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses.

People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.
(11-19-2014 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses.

People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.

I was thinking of the people who are unhappy that he is not on the sideline screaming into a player's face after a penalty or showing anger at a press conference. If that is not you, I apologize. But it is somebody, and several of them. It keeps coming up.

As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.

JMHO
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses.

People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.

I was thinking of the people who are unhappy that he is not on the sideline screaming into a player's face after a penalty or showing anger at a press conference. If that is not you, I apologize. But it is somebody, and several of them. It keeps coming up.

As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.

JMHO

Once again, there is a big difference between "caring about winning" and not tolerating losing.
(11-19-2014 10:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]IMO, you've got to have a head coach who absolutely hates losing and shows it after losses; especially after embarrassing losses.

People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.

I was thinking of the people who are unhappy that he is not on the sideline screaming into a player's face after a penalty or showing anger at a press conference. If that is not you, I apologize. But it is somebody, and several of them. It keeps coming up.

As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.

JMHO

Once again, there is a big difference between "caring about winning" and not tolerating losing.

Personally, I think that is a distinction without a difference. JMHO.
(11-19-2014 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]People show emotions in different ways; I myself have been described as stoic and calm in situations of great stress. I watch a lot of these true crime stories on TV, such as 20/20, and it always strikes how the detectives always come back to a person's demeanor - either he showed too much grief or not enough. How are people supposed to act after discovering their wife/child/parent has been murdered? .

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.

I was thinking of the people who are unhappy that he is not on the sideline screaming into a player's face after a penalty or showing anger at a press conference. If that is not you, I apologize. But it is somebody, and several of them. It keeps coming up.

As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.

JMHO

Once again, there is a big difference between "caring about winning" and not tolerating losing.

Personally, I think that is a distinction without a difference. JMHO.

And that is the gist of the problem. There is a HUGE difference from a player's perspective, and it's also reflected in preparation.
(11-19-2014 10:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, you're exaggerating and overstating my position. Not tolerating losing does not necessitate "throwing a tantrum" or yelling at players...but it is reflected in how one looks and talks publically as coach's words get back to the players and affects their motivation and mindset.

I was thinking of the people who are unhappy that he is not on the sideline screaming into a player's face after a penalty or showing anger at a press conference. If that is not you, I apologize. But it is somebody, and several of them. It keeps coming up.

As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.

JMHO

Once again, there is a big difference between "caring about winning" and not tolerating losing.

Personally, I think that is a distinction without a difference. JMHO.

And that is the gist of the problem. There is a HUGE difference from a player's perspective, and it's also reflected in preparation.

Any former players care to chime in on this?
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]People show emotions in different ways; [].

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

I don't think I was one of the ones who ever suggested Coach Bailiff and staff didn't want to win. I do think there were games when Rice was way behind, but maybe could still get back into it with aggressive play, where the conservative play felt like we had given up a little prematurely. Incidentally, that's why I was happy to see Rice go for it of 4th down, I think late 3rd-quarter, against Marshall. Even though it was unsuccessful, it was the only hope to win. Also incidentally, during the Saints/Packers game earlier this year, the TV commentators mentioned how few come-from-behind-victories Aaron Rodgers has engineered, and they attributed it his conservative passing. That leads to very few interceptions, but also makes it harder to come from behind (compared to someone line Payton Manning, who is willing to take more chances when behind by a couple touchdowns). One approach leads to more close losses and fewer wins, while the other leads to more wins and more blowout losses.

But I also get Walt's point about Coach Bailiff's public persona and seeming to sometimes accept losses with a better attitude than other coaches. Without throwing clipboards, this quote from Mississippi State's Dan Mullen kind of summarizes the spirit I would like in a coach (5:35 mark):
Quote:Question: What did you say to the team after to kind of, get them to rebound after this?
Mullen: Well I mean, we should feel awful right now, we lost a football game. Everybody should feel awful. We should embrace that feeling, that sickness that's in your stomach right now. You know. Its a feeling I can't even explain to you unless you've been out there on the field and you've played in these types of games and you've been a part of it, you've no idea what I'm talking about, what that sickness is in your stomach, that feeling. But you should embrace that feeling, because we want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Maybe Coach Bailiff is like that with the players, but he doesn't appear to be that way in front of the cameras. I don't think it should really matter how he appears in front of the cameras, but I do hope he has a similar sick feeling in his stomach when Rice loses. Or basically, what OO said:
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.



(11-19-2014 10:58 AM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]People show emotions in different ways; [].

I don't know why we need a coach who throws clipboards or yells or otherwise shows emotion. After an embarrassing 44-7 loss ( and I mean embarrassing, as I had to ride back to my car on a bus with one other Rice fan and otherwise all MSU fans), I don't care whether he throws a hissy fit or not - I care that he goes to work to try and correct the situation. Progress has been slow - slower than any of us would have wanted - but still there is progress.

I don't think I was one of the ones who ever suggested Coach Bailiff and staff didn't want to win. I do think there were games when Rice was way behind, but maybe could still get back into it with aggressive play, where the conservative play felt like we had given up a little prematurely. Incidentally, that's why I was happy to see Rice go for it of 4th down, I think late 3rd-quarter, against Marshall. Even though it was unsuccessful, it was the only hope to win. Also incidentally, during the Saints/Packers game earlier this year, the TV commentators mentioned how few come-from-behind-victories Aaron Rodgers has engineered, and they attributed it his conservative passing. That leads to very few interceptions, but also makes it harder to come from behind (compared to someone line Payton Manning, who is willing to take more chances when behind by a couple touchdowns). One approach leads to more close losses and fewer wins, while the other leads to more wins and more blowout losses.

But I also get Walt's point about Coach Bailiff's public persona and seeming to sometimes accept losses with a better attitude than other coaches. Without throwing clipboards, this quote from Mississippi State's Dan Mullen kind of summarizes the spirit I would like in a coach (5:35 mark):
Quote:Question: What did you say to the team after to kind of, get them to rebound after this?
Mullen: Well I mean, we should feel awful right now, we lost a football game. Everybody should feel awful. We should embrace that feeling, that sickness that's in your stomach right now. You know. Its a feeling I can't even explain to you unless you've been out there on the field and you've played in these types of games and you've been a part of it, you've no idea what I'm talking about, what that sickness is in your stomach, that feeling. But you should embrace that feeling, because we want to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Maybe Coach Bailiff is like that with the players, but he doesn't appear to be that way in front of the cameras. I don't think it should really matter how he appears in front of the cameras, but I do hope he has a similar sick feeling in his stomach when Rice loses. Or basically, what OO said:
(11-19-2014 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]As for the players, what they see and hear at practice and in meetings is, IMO, 100 times more important than how the coach looked and sounded at a press conference.

Sometimes we don't need to air our dirty laundry publicly. I think the proper forum for showing the players he cares about winning is not in front of a mic, but in the interactions they have later, privately.




Thanks. any others?
Just one man's opinion, but I've yet to experience a coach at any level who has a totally different personality-- and says totally different things-- in public and in the locker room. One may be a bit more careful and subtle in what he says in a public forum, and less rough around the edges, but the gist of the message is usually the same.

Also, if a coach is truly upset and disappointed with the performance it is very hard, if not impossible, to hide in post-game comments. You either are tolerant of losing or you're not, and it's reflected in your demeanor and comments-- both publically and in the locker room.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's