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
Walt, have you ever been a college coach? How do you react when you mess up or underperform at work? What's your "public" face like then? Just need a baseline to work off of.

Or, which coach/coaches get you all tingly with their demeanor after a loss? That would also help establish a baseline.
(11-19-2014 11:42 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]Walt, have you ever been a college coach? How do you react when you mess up or underperform at work? What's your "public" face like then? Just need a baseline to work off of.

Or, which coach/coaches get you all tingly with their demeanor after a loss? That would also help establish a baseline.

I've obviously never been a college coach, but I have been a baseball and football coach at the pony league level. And in the past, in those rare instances I mess up at work or underperform up to my standards (and I'm a perfectionist at heart), I'm pretty hard on myself and it absolutely shows in my demeanor.
Owl69/70,

First, thank you for openness and balanced demeanor when responding to my posted thoughts. As I said, I never played above HS football, and I know some of ya'll did, so I approach my analysis as a fan more than a player's perspective. I appreciate your (and other posters') more knowledgeable insights from that perspective.

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]...we've had in the past that's averaging 2 to 4 wins a season (for reference, we won 28 in the decade of the 70s and 22 in the decade of the 80s).

I was here during those '80s years. Watson Brown and Jerry Burndt.
Many of those losses were to what today are considered P-5 schools back in the SWC mostly, so although it still stunk losing, it was overall to seemingly better competition.

Since we've dropped down so far (or been left behind so far-take your pick; tomato, tomahto) I equate a 7-5 season with most (or all) of the wins against current C-USA 3.1 members to going about 2-10 in the old SWC, hence perhaps you can see why I'm not very satisfied with the alleged improvement the same way some other posters are. To me, we haven't really improved all that much. (Some, yes, but not enough.)

I know your post preaches some more patience, but Lord have mercy, my hair's literally starting to fall out these days (not to mention the gray), so how much longer?

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess what I'm saying is that I could see Bailiff as the leadoff guy in something like a Koetter/Hawkins/Petersen progression...

Great. When can we go ahead and get to the Hawkins/Petersen in that equation? Why do we have to stay with the first guy so long?


(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]As for Muschamp, he's a very capable DC, but by no means did Florida overachieve during his tenure there. He came from Texas, where underachieving with great talent has been the recent norm. He was the heir apparent because he looked better in that role than Greg Davis, but that's not saying a lot. I don't know that he can't do it, but I do know that he hasn't done it.

I know Muschamp hasn't done it yet. Maybe he never will. All I saw was here's a guy to Top 10 programs had in their sites to hire for the Head Coach job (one did, the other designated in waiting). He has a depth of connections to the SEC, premier college football conference in the USA currently, and a strong Texas connection for recruiting purposes.

My point is: would Texas (before or today, or at any time) ever consider David Bailiff as its Head Coach or Head Coach in waiting? Would Florida ever hire David Bailiff for its Head Coach?

I think the answer was, is and probably always will be a very strong NO.
Nothing personal, "it's just business."

That is the difference to me. I'm not saying Muschamp is the only guy or end-all be-all. He's just an opportunity because he became available, that's all. We should take a serious look at it.

I know we don't spend like those schools do on coaches. I'm moving more to the mindset/camp of maybe I'd rather Rice spend a few million on top-level coaches and let them do their thing here (win big) and then do the EZF after fans start packing the stands and other name p-5 schools we need to play in Non-conference rotation (LSU, OLE MISS, MISS STATE, and yeah, I'd like to see us play Georgia and GA Tech sometime in my lifetime just because it's where I'm from).

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What we need is someone who:
1) represents well the values of the university,
2) can maintain recruiting at the current level, or perhaps turn it up another notch or two, and
3) can get that talent to overachieve.

Bailiff is as good as we can reasonably expect with regard to 1 and 2. So far, he hasn't shown the ability to do 3. Muschamp is not a slam dunk with any of them.

+1 totally agree with this. I don't want to cheat. But if you can't do #3 after 8 years, well... maybe time to tell that girl she's just not the one, but thanks for the fun.

Again, thanks for your response, Owl69/70. Always enjoy coming to the boards here and reading what you have to say.
(11-19-2014 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: [ -> ]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.

My issue with this line of thinking is that, while objecting to his approach (with which I have no problem) you are also speculating on his mindset. You have no idea what DB is thinking/tolerating/accepting until/unless he says it. In my experience, high performing athletes (Bailiff was this as well) generally have an incredible drive to succeed but it doesn't manifest in everyone the same way. I get that DB doesn't show as much fire as you like but it is unfair to assign values, esp a tolerance for losing, based on your perception of his personality.
(11-18-2014 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Will somebody please define "getting us to the next level"?

OO, enjoyed very much meeting you at the Liberty Bowl. But really, don't you want to see Rice really turn it all the way around in your lifetime? As I said above, I'm going gray and it's falling out of the top of my head now, so I'll turn the tables on your post a bit:

Just exactly how long do we have to be patient with the status quo? IS there a level of criteria that you would be willing to cut bait or not, and if so what is it?

I believe you graduated before me, so I'd think you'd be a bit more anxious is all I'm saying.

As for the NC in football, well, I'm a "might as well shoot for the stars cause if you fall short, you'll still probably get a nice trip into space" guy.

Some probably laughed at the thought of Rice having a NC in baseball before Wayne got it done, right? And I can clearly see the difference in Wayne and Bailiff.
(11-18-2014 08:52 AM)Da.Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 08:45 AM)MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ]btw, this is my eternal frustration with Rice basketball. Since conference tourneys became the norm in late 70s and early 80s, dozens of teams with losing records have hit a late Feb hot streak and played their way into the dance. I don't recall Rice ever even making the final of its conference tournament.

I think the turnaround of MBB has begun. May take a couple of years, but I'll be very disappointed if #RiceRising fails going forward. We have a coach who "gets it" and the current team has bought in. 04-rock

+1 I agree with this. I wish we could have a Rhoades-type Head Coach for Football now as well, to go along with Rhoades and the OG.
(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Owl69/70,

First, thank you for openness and balanced demeanor when responding to my posted thoughts. As I said, I never played above HS football, and I know some of ya'll did, so I approach my analysis as a fan more than a player's perspective. I appreciate your (and other posters') more knowledgeable insights from that perspective.

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]...we've had in the past that's averaging 2 to 4 wins a season (for reference, we won 28 in the decade of the 70s and 22 in the decade of the 80s).

I was here during those '80s years. Watson Brown and Jerry Burndt.
Many of those losses were to what today are considered P-5 schools back in the SWC mostly, so although it still stunk losing, it was overall to seemingly better competition.

Since we've dropped down so far (or been left behind so far-take your pick; tomato, tomahto) I equate a 7-5 season with most (or all) of the wins against current C-USA 3.1 members to going about 2-10 in the old SWC, hence perhaps you can see why I'm not very satisfied with the alleged improvement the same way some other posters are. To me, we haven't really improved all that much. (Some, yes, but not enough.)

I know your post preaches some more patience, but Lord have mercy, my hair's literally starting to fall out these days (not to mention the gray), so how much longer?

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I guess what I'm saying is that I could see Bailiff as the leadoff guy in something like a Koetter/Hawkins/Petersen progression...

Great. When can we go ahead and get to the Hawkins/Petersen in that equation? Why do we have to stay with the first guy so long?


(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]As for Muschamp, he's a very capable DC, but by no means did Florida overachieve during his tenure there. He came from Texas, where underachieving with great talent has been the recent norm. He was the heir apparent because he looked better in that role than Greg Davis, but that's not saying a lot. I don't know that he can't do it, but I do know that he hasn't done it.

I know Muschamp hasn't done it yet. Maybe he never will. All I saw was here's a guy to Top 10 programs had in their sites to hire for the Head Coach job (one did, the other designated in waiting). He has a depth of connections to the SEC, premier college football conference in the USA currently, and a strong Texas connection for recruiting purposes.

My point is: would Texas (before or today, or at any time) ever consider David Bailiff as its Head Coach or Head Coach in waiting? Would Florida ever hire David Bailiff for its Head Coach?

I think the answer was, is and probably always will be a very strong NO.
Nothing personal, "it's just business."

That is the difference to me. I'm not saying Muschamp is the only guy or end-all be-all. He's just an opportunity because he became available, that's all. We should take a serious look at it.

I know we don't spend like those schools do on coaches. I'm moving more to the mindset/camp of maybe I'd rather Rice spend a few million on top-level coaches and let them do their thing here (win big) and then do the EZF after fans start packing the stands and other name p-5 schools we need to play in Non-conference rotation (LSU, OLE MISS, MISS STATE, and yeah, I'd like to see us play Georgia and GA Tech sometime in my lifetime just because it's where I'm from).

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]What we need is someone who:
1) represents well the values of the university,
2) can maintain recruiting at the current level, or perhaps turn it up another notch or two, and
3) can get that talent to overachieve.

Bailiff is as good as we can reasonably expect with regard to 1 and 2. So far, he hasn't shown the ability to do 3. Muschamp is not a slam dunk with any of them.

+1 totally agree with this. I don't want to cheat. But if you can't do #3 after 8 years, well... maybe time to tell that girl she's just not the one, but thanks for the fun.

Again, thanks for your response, Owl69/70. Always enjoy coming to the boards here and reading what you have to say.

IMHO, there is little doubt that our teams from about 77-88 were weaker than some of our better teams since then. I mean, really, losing to SW Party (um err Texas) State? Now, grant you the Nichols St and ODU losses were horrific and the 07 and 09 teams were pretty awful. And I would contend that in those years, the SWC was not as strong as prior for all kinds of reasons.
(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Owl69/70,
First, thank you for openness and balanced demeanor when responding to my posted thoughts. As I said, I never played above HS football, and I know some of ya'll did, so I approach my analysis as a fan more than a player's perspective. I appreciate your (and other posters') more knowledgeable insights from that perspective.

For the record, I did not play football beyond HS either. I did letter in golf 2 years at Rice and also played rugby. I have never coached football above pee-wee but I have coached rugby at the intercollegiate level, as high as the sweet 16 of the National College Sevens Championship. All in all, I guess there probably aren't that many people who have had the privilege of coaching at a national Sweet 16 level. I keep the sideline pass prominently displayed in my office. I am not presently coaching any sport.
Not to jump in this discussion, but...I'm a big fan of Bailiff primarily because of the way he handles the locker room. I've been in the locker room following a good win and a bad loss. To say that David "accepts" losing is far from reality. (I don't know what "not tolerating a loss" is so if someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it).

And speaking of locker rooms, how about this proposal...give David facilities that are competitive with, say Katy ISD and let's see where it goes. While we're at it, let's add in some money for recruiting so his budget is not on a par with HBU...there are many ways to "get to the next level" and in my opinion, none of them start with replacing the coach.
(11-19-2014 02:56 PM)Houston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Not to jump in this discussion, but...I'm a big fan of Bailiff primarily because of the way he handles the locker room. I've been in the locker room following a good win and a bad loss. To say that David "accepts" losing is far from reality. (I don't know what "not tolerating a loss" is so if someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it).

And speaking of locker rooms, how about this proposal...give David facilities that are competitive with, say Katy ISD and let's see where it goes. While we're at it, let's add in some money for recruiting so his budget is not on a par with HBU...there are many ways to "get to the next level" and in my opinion, none of them start with replacing the coach.


I tend to agree with this with one exception. I don't think David has had enough turnover beneath him. I LOVE what David brings to the table and what he brings may not be what other schools want... but it IS what WE want. That's not a knock on any individual coach as much as it is a knock on the idea that every team needs a few trouble-makers... a few pot stirrers.

Let's be honest. Most p5 schools are large, state funded research institutions with pretty decent academics. Not Rice quality, perhaps, but close enough that we aren't going to win that recruiting battle for the best players very often. Throw in Vandy and Stanford and Northwestern and Duke and we're perhaps their 3rd or 4th choice, tops (the 5 star guys) because their exposure is a large multiple of what ours is or could ever reasonably expect to be from CUSA.

And since we don't pay the most, to expect our coaches to somehow just be 'better' at their jobs than our competition (and yet not get constantly hired away) is an unrealistic expectation

Can we get a little better with these resources? Absolutely... and David and company have earned the right to get to use them...

I don't think we can get the sort of improvement we're really looking for... being competitive with top 50, especially the lower bowl eligible p5 schools... which in reality only means winning our conference and being competitive in the bowl we earn as a result of doing so... without being far more different/innovative/taking advantage of the fact that we recruit generally more intelligent players. I think it would be a mistake to go back to the bone because then we'd lose much of the 'path to the NFL' argument on offense (and perhaps some fans) but there are plenty of innovative offenses in college football. Some of the most innovative in fact are coaching at lower levels.
(11-18-2014 07:40 PM)temchugh Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 07:11 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]MBB success and a revenue stream from MBB make it significantly easier to build the football program.

Take Duke, for example. They lose $15 million per year on athletics instead of $20 million. That difference is clearly due to basketball revenue and not ACC revenue sharing vs. CUSA.

Duke has been to the NCAA Basketball tournament every year except one since 1984. They have leveraged that success into football respectability every year since 2013.

Also see Memphis.

Duke, Louisville, North Carolina Generate the Most College Basketball Revenue

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/...revenue/2/ Wrote:1 Duke $26,667,056 2.64

How much is their distribution from the ACC?

And, how can they possibly run a $15mm deficit with those numbers?
Because, as Kargaard has warned us, P-5 membership is much more expensive, which is why most programs lose money despite the grester television revenue. Vanderbilt is being bled white just keeping their head above water in the SEC.
(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have been arguing about Bailiff's merits since 2007.
To which I gave a new analogy I had never seen posted here before: If Bailiff was a girl you'd been dating since 2007, and in 2014 with her 'performance' you still couldn't pull the trigger and marry her, even though she wanted to be with you "forever" and even though you wanted to marry someone in your life, that would tell you that she just wasn't the right one for you even though she had some qualities you liked.

(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I was a charter member of the tar and feather crowd. But I have not read anything new in several years about his termination versus his retention and the constant repetition, IMO, is getting tiresome.

Bailiff's performance not moving the needle is what is getting tiresome to me. I'm tired of that constant repetition. I point out again, I remained silent the whole season until the after the Marshall loss. Didn't even chime in after ODU.

(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So, I suggest we confine our discussion to players, game plays and strategy until after the season.

OK. Here's something:

I generally don't enjoy much of the gameplay from Bailiff's teams the way I enjoy watching a "regular" college football matchup for a team I may be rooting for in another game. Even if I'm just watching a game I have no bias towards, I generally will pick a 'side" if I've been watching that game for a bit, mostly based on my perceptions of the teams I'm watching play the game. I generally root for the underdog (not always), but if a team I am rooting for is just playing terribly execution-wise in my opinion, my feeling is along the lines of: "well, yeah, they deserve to lose, they don't play the game well."

Bailiff's teams, which are my alma mater who I want to see win, have been at times in the past (not quite as much this season) very hard to watch as a generic fan of football, with a feeling of dread for the inevitable blowout or sea change that turns a game against us even when ahead. Far too often, games that seem like we should have wrapped up, are brought into question all the way to the end, or blown. Too often we escape by the skin of our teeth when it never should have been that close.

And those are the things that drive me a bit nuts. He does just enough to stay as coach or get an extension due to the way circumstances line up, but not because he regularly kicks butt and takes names as a team (not talking about his demeanor here, just the play.)

I'm looking for a coach that gives me confidence when I watch a game that we're good and we're competitive with most any team we play. We generally beat who we are supposed to. Plus we can and will pull the occasional upset every few years that makes people take notice.

I just can't define it, but I'm never confident with Bailiff, and I would like to be. I'd love him to prove me wrong. He's the girl who is willing to do anything to stay in a relationship with you (which I understand is appealing--everyone wants to be wanted), but always falls short of what you really want and is hard to get rid of. If you're on the fence after 8 years, you have to do both of yourselves a favor and cut it off, no matter how painful. It is unlikely (possible, but unlikely) to change after that much time.

Or you just settle. I don't like settling.


(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The University's overall commitment to athletics is another matter and deserves much discussion.

I wish they'd be even more clear and vocal about it than they have been. I wish they'd say more and talk about it more often. Status updates (we're 80% to our goal for the new XYZ plans! Let's push it over the top by such and such date! rah, rah!etc... A little more enthusiasm instead of the clinical feel would be nice for a change. It makes it feel they tolerate athletics rather than look at it as an avenue to compete like they do with other areas of the university.)

I wish they weren't so insider-ish. They sure seem to tout all the aspirations for the rest of the university ad nauseum. Why not be the same for sports? It's part of the University, but sometimes doesn't quite feel like it. Maybe that contributes to the apathy among some students.

There you go. Beat UTEP, Beat LA Tech, Beat Whoever U in Whatever Bowl. Bailiff, Kick butt and shut us up! Go Rice!
(11-19-2014 04:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have been arguing about Bailiff's merits since 2007.
To which I gave a new analogy I had never seen posted here before: If Bailiff was a girl you'd been dating since 2007, and in 2014 with her 'performance' you still couldn't pull the trigger and marry her, even though she wanted to be with you "forever" and even though you wanted to marry someone in your life, that would tell you that she just wasn't the right one for you even though she had some qualities you liked.

At the risk of getting into pointless analogy hyperanalysis, I'd say that unless you're one of the folks who could actually affect the situation (by signing some bigtime checks to help finance the multidimensional upgrade that I believe we all would like to see Rice athletics receive), a better analogy might be that Bailiff is not your girlfriend, but rather the girlfriend of one of your best friends. And you think (strongly) that he could do a lot better. But he doesn't seem willing to make that change ... for reasons that you don't know or understand.
(11-19-2014 02:56 PM)Houston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Not to jump in this discussion, but...I'm a big fan of Bailiff primarily because of the way he handles the locker room. I've been in the locker room following a good win and a bad loss. To say that David "accepts" losing is far from reality. (I don't know what "not tolerating a loss" is so if someone can explain that to me, I'd appreciate it).

And speaking of locker rooms, how about this proposal...give David facilities that are competitive with, say Katy ISD and let's see where it goes. While we're at it, let's add in some money for recruiting so his budget is not on a par with HBU...there are many ways to "get to the next level" and in my opinion, none of them start with replacing the coach.

Thanks for the information. Wish there was a way to give Bailiff a 3-year stretch where he had improved facilities and a bigger budget for recruiting and assistants/coordinators. Then we'd really know what his achievement ceiling was and my productivity at work would go up.
(11-19-2014 04:45 PM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2014 04:33 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:40 PM)NolaOwl Wrote: [ -> ]We have been arguing about Bailiff's merits since 2007.
To which I gave a new analogy I had never seen posted here before: If Bailiff was a girl you'd been dating since 2007, and in 2014 with her 'performance' you still couldn't pull the trigger and marry her, even though she wanted to be with you "forever" and even though you wanted to marry someone in your life, that would tell you that she just wasn't the right one for you even though she had some qualities you liked.

At the risk of getting into pointless analogy hyperanalysis, I'd say that unless you're one of the folks who could actually affect the situation (by signing some bigtime checks to help finance the multidimensional upgrade that I believe we all would like to see Rice athletics receive), a better analogy might be that Bailiff is not your girlfriend, but rather the girlfriend of one of your best friends. And you think (strongly) that he could do a lot better. But he doesn't seem willing to make that change ... for reasons that you don't know or understand.

Fair enough. even better analogy description, Almadenmike. Thank you. I'll let you know if things change and I become T-Boone. Starting a new company now, so not yet.

It's the "for reasons that you don't know or understand" part that is difficult. That's why I read/post on the board sometimes, I guess.
Maybe the boyfriend loves her for being low-maintenance and happy to be with him even if they are strapped for cash and living in a trailerhome. Maybe the previous girlfriend ran off with a rich dude after less than a year.

No denying Bailiff tolerates some serious limitations.
(11-19-2014 01:31 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-18-2014 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Will somebody please define "getting us to the next level"?

OO, enjoyed very much meeting you at the Liberty Bowl. But really, don't you want to see Rice really turn it all the way around in your lifetime? As I said above, I'm going gray and it's falling out of the top of my head now, so I'll turn the tables on your post a bit:

Just exactly how long do we have to be patient with the status quo? IS there a level of criteria that you would be willing to cut bait or not, and if so what is it?

I believe you graduated before me,

I have enunciated some of my personal feelings many times, in many threads, and I don't get where people think I am for the status quo. In this thread, post 88, I said that top 50 was not good enough for me as a goal. Top- 50 should be a bad year, not a goal. We should be the team the others are looking to beat for their signature win.

Somehow, peop0le equate not carrying a pitchfork with liking where we are.

The real question is not what is the goal: it is how to get there. some people want to get there by firing bailiff, some by giving him more rope, some by keeping him. All valid and arguable POVs. I object to using opinions as fact when making the case to fire. He doesn't develop players. he has no fire in the belly. he doesn't prepare, he isn't driven, he is too loyal, he is too nice, he doesn't show emotion on the sidelines, yada, yada, yada. He can't get us there, and we aren't even in agreement on where there is.

Fire the guy, if you want. But if the next guy runs plays you don't like, or talks coachspeak in pressers, or keeps his cool on the sideline, better jump on him too. Otherwise this was all just personal, as I suspect a lot of it is. A lot of people don't like bailiff because...well, he followed the Saint Todd with a losing season, initiated by an embarrassing loss to NickSt. A lot of people wanted him gone right then, including me. Some still do.

Do as you will with the coach. I will support the next one, also. But don't accuse me of liking the status quo.

I graduated in 1968, I have children your age, and yes, they are getting grey. Frankly, I doubt we will ever get "there" in my lifetime, but I do want to see more wins, better play, more bowls, more recognition. I entered Rice after the last bowl team (for a long time, 1961) and lived through every year, every debacle, every coaching change, and remained a fan, and never once said this is a good as it gets, and I'm not about to start now. I want to win these last two games, win our bowl game, do well next year and the year after and the year after, and so forth.

I am OptimisticOwl, not StatusQuoOwl
You have to fund a far larger number of non-rev sports to be in a p5 conference.

On the plus side for us, because 'scholarships' are such a large part of most of these sports expenses, and we already offer significant academic scholarships... the true 'net' cost to us would be somewhat less than at most places.
(11-19-2014 04:50 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Wish there was a way to give Bailiff a 3-year stretch where he had improved facilities and a bigger budget for recruiting and assistants/coordinators. Then we'd really know what his achievement ceiling was and my productivity at work would go up.

Well, Rice already set a precedent of not giving WTW the benefit you asked for. Granted, we experienced OO's scenario of hiring another guy who couldn't get the job done either...which then got us to Mike Rhoades...who seems to be different enough and raised expectations that he can get us there...time will tell, but many are excited and many have commented how they bought season tix for MBB for the first time or the first time in years, or are excited to see the team play even though they realize it will be a year or two before things really get going.

Why is that? Well, part of it seems to be the more aggressive attitude and expectations change that Rhoades has set so far with his more open marketing (youtube videos, interviews) about what he is doing different and how the players are responding. Part of it is they want to see a team, even a losing team, play that exciting style of basketball that Rhoades says (and has started showing) he is going to play. That draws fans in. I literally teared up with Rice pride when I first saw the first Rhoades summer SEAL training video. Then I was proud and happy to see both the Head Coach himself, his staff, and the AD, Dr. K also participating right alongside the players. The message: This is a TEAM, boys, and we're all in this together.

Bailiff brings tears to my eyes regularly as well. Not the same tears Rhoades generates, just tears. Sure, I'd like the facilities, and whipped cream and a cherry on top of it all, but more, I want a coach that doesn't need that to get the job done. Kinda a Hoosiers-style guy. get it done anyway. Like some posters have said: take what you got and coach 'em up and scheme 'em up a storm and steal some games you shouldn't and surprise some people. When they zig you zag, etc...
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's