We now have examples from both ends of the FBS pecking order of teams firing coaches mid-season.
And from South Main? Crickets.
More unconventional wisdom I guess.
Is it plausible that Luke Turner's crying at end of 5-7 season saved his job, or was it not in the cards to make a change no matter what?
(09-25-2016 06:55 PM)MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it plausible that Luke Turner's crying at end of 5-7 season saved his job, or was it not in the cards to make a change no matter what?
I think Luke's emotional response to the question helped earn some good will for DB, but I have to hope we don't have a group of leaders that would allow a single act of emotion completely alter their decision. While the decision to retain DB was incorrect at the end of the season, I have a feeling that the decision to not fire DB was made well before that moment.
(09-25-2016 06:55 PM)MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it plausible that Luke Turner's crying at end of 5-7 season saved his job, or was it not in the cards to make a change no matter what?
Short answer: after last season, Bailiff was only 2/5 into his current contract and only one season removed from a pretty good 3-year run. I doubt Turner's speech was a factor.
Long answer, tying into the Big Picture, because I know that somebody's going to quibble: I realize that some of you think the 2012-2014 run was not good enough, and I agree to an extent, but our realignment-based goal has to be: be one of the better programs available to the MWC or AAC whenever they expand (which we can't control). And from that perspective, I do think 2012-2014 was good enough.
The "leapfrog" plan, where we jump from C-USA 3.0 directly to a P-5 conference, has always been a pipe dream. It won't happen even if we hire Bear Bryant's Ghost to coach the team. The path to P-5, if it exists at all, is through the better G-5 conferences. We don't need to (and probably cannot) achieve greatness in this C-USA. We do need to be decent at the right time.
Last December it was unclear whether 2015 was a local minimum or a midpoint on a slide. A few months before that, even Bailiff's critics were saying that he could win 7 or 8 consistently. I was somewhat skeptical, but he had proven me wrong twice before.
Now, we have a lot more clarity. We are 0-4 with a home loss to a fellow Bottom-10 team. 2013 seems like a distant memory and an anomaly. I won't be surprised to see him fired at any point.
(09-26-2016 12:51 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2016 06:55 PM)MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it plausible that Luke Turner's crying at end of 5-7 season saved his job, or was it not in the cards to make a change no matter what?
Short answer: after last season, Bailiff was only 2/5 into his current contract and only one season removed from a pretty good 3-year run. I doubt Turner's speech was a factor.
Long answer, tying into the Big Picture, because I know that somebody's going to quibble: I realize that some of you think the 2012-2014 run was not good enough, and I agree to an extent, but our realignment-based goal has to be: be one of the better programs available to the MWC or AAC whenever they expand (which we can't control). And from that perspective, I do think 2012-2014 was good enough.
The "leapfrog" plan, where we jump from C-USA 3.0 directly to a P-5 conference, has always been a pipe dream. It won't happen even if we hire Bear Bryant's Ghost to coach the team. The path to P-5, if it exists at all, is through the better G-5 conferences. We don't need to (and probably cannot) achieve greatness in this C-USA. We do need to be decent at the right time.
Last December it was unclear whether 2015 was a local minimum or a midpoint on a slide. A few months before that, even Bailiff's critics were saying that he could win 7 or 8 consistently. I was somewhat skeptical, but he had proven me wrong twice before.
Now, we have a lot more clarity. We are 0-4 with a home loss to a fellow Bottom-10 team. 2013 seems like a distant memory and an anomaly. I won't be surprised to see him fired at any point.
Based on who we were beating and how we were losing-- not to mention the same mistakes being made and the same weaknesses emerging-- it was apparent to at least some of us that 2013 was an aberration, and that we had plateaued immediately thereafter. Prior to the 2014 bowl game we were ranked only in the high 80s/low-to-mid 90s range. We were anything but a quality team that year.
(09-26-2016 12:51 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Last December it was unclear whether 2015 was a local minimum or a midpoint on a slide.
I'm guessing just about everyone on this board has some training in statistics and data analysis, but we do struggle with questions like this.
Even when things were good, there were some eye test concerns. e.g., in 2012 we had a bad home loss to ODU and got embarrassed by La Tech. But we played very well in the Hawaii Bowl and the season was considered a success by Rice standards.
2013 now stands out as an anomaly. I'm not sure what happened. As i posted in another thread, we were actually at our peak of NFL talent on the roster in 2012, which started 1-5 with some bad performances and then squeaked to 6-6 and a great bowl win.
With ostensibly less talent in 2013, we got more done. There were some ugly wins and ugly losses, and we weren't competitive in the bowl game, but we won CUSA which was a significant accomplishment.
How did it happen?
(09-26-2016 06:38 AM)MemOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2016 12:51 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Last December it was unclear whether 2015 was a local minimum or a midpoint on a slide.
I'm guessing just about everyone on this board has some training in statistics and data analysis, but we do struggle with questions like this.
Even when things were good, there were some eye test concerns. e.g., in 2012 we had a bad home loss to ODU and got embarrassed by La Tech. But we played very well in the Hawaii Bowl and the season was considered a success by Rice standards.
2013 now stands out as an anomaly. I'm not sure what happened. As i posted in another thread, we were actually at our peak of NFL talent on the roster in 2012, which started 1-5 with some bad performances and then squeaked to 6-6 and a great bowl win.
With ostensibly less talent in 2013, we got more done. There were some ugly wins and ugly losses, and we weren't competitive in the bowl game, but we won CUSA which was a significant accomplishment.
How did it happen?
While we were at max NFL talent in 2012, a lot of those players were young. In 2013, the key contributors had more experience and appeared to have learned from that and grown into better players. It isn't as if a player in the NFL currently was ready for the NFL their freshman or sophomore year. Gaines, Callahan, and Covington definitely got better the more they played and practiced, and 2013 was about the only year we had a decent defense.
(09-26-2016 12:51 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Last December it was unclear whether 2015 was a local minimum or a midpoint on a slide. A few months before that, even Bailiff's critics were saying that he could win 7 or 8 consistently. I was somewhat skeptical, but he had proven me wrong twice before.
It was clear to me, and I posted as much. From the first time the subject came up, I was predicting 3-9 for this year. After Saturday, I hope I wasn't overly optimistic.
I think I fit into the Bailiff's critics category. I don't think I--or any of the other critics--were saying that he could win 7 or 8 consistently, or that doing so was acceptable. I would restate the consensus of the critics more along the lines that winning 7 or 8 would probably be the typical high end, and that it needed to be the low water mark if Rice were to be able to upgrade conferences, eventually and hopefully to P-5 status. He's had 9 seasons, two better than 8 wins (2008, 2013), two with 7-8 wins counting bowls (2012, 2014), and five with fewer (2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2015), with 2016 starting to look like a sixth. What you see is what you get. He had one good year at Texas State, but did not sustain. And he hasn't sustained at Rice.
But my concerns are more qualitative than quantitative. I just don't think his approach to winning football games can work at Rice. I don't think we can ever hope to line up and do the same things everybody else is doing and somehow out-athlete them. I don't see anything that we are doing schematically, and I don't think our execution has ever been sufficiently precise, to overcome the inevitable talent gap. And I think that sets a very low ceiling on what we can accomplish.
You have to also examine the impact of S&C and Rick Greenspan. I think that we are still suffering from the effects of Greenspan's decisions. From Greenspan firing Coach K (that was huge from a personnel physical development aspect) to his arrogant dismissal of lobbying for the AAC/Big East, Greenspan factors into the current slide.
As for 2013, I don't think it was an anomaly any more than I think that 2008 was an anomaly. Remember, Rice had identical conference records in both 2008 and 2013: 7-1. The difference is that in 2008 we lost to a Tulsa team that went undefeated in conference play otherwise 2013 would have been our second trip to the Liberty Bowl under Bailiff. If anything, it would seem that Bailiff's teams are on a 5 year cycle which would project the next conference title to 2018. But, that frequency leaves much to be desired.
I think that Bailiff has done a tremendous job in "stabilizing" the program and proving to would be prospective coaches that Rice can be a successful destination. However, Rice offers fundamental challenges that require more effort and thought than other programs, many of which we have already discussed.
One hot button for me that either the current staff or the next staff needs to address is the subject of recruiting physically ready talent: Rice needs a dedicated and effective S&C program. Yancy McKnight and Coach K were outstanding. The jury is out on Tedford and it seems that Coach Yox may introduced a program incompatible with our needs. We don't get the Alabama type kids. But neither does Navy, Army, or Air Force. Even Tulane, Northwestern and to an extent Stanford don't always get the freshman that are physically ready. Rice still has to grow players, but it has to be done in such a way that flexibility and speed are not sacrificed. I think that Coach Bailiff tried to implement that philosophy but honestly losing Coach K was huge and Greenspan was directly responsible for Coach K's dismissal.
(09-26-2016 10:16 AM)Pan95 Wrote: [ -> ]As for 2013, I don't think it was an anomaly any more than I think that 2008 was an anomaly. Remember, Rice had identical conference records in both 2008 and 2013: 7-1. The difference is that in 2008 we lost to a Tulsa team that went undefeated in conference play otherwise 2013 would have been our second trip to the Liberty Bowl under Bailiff. If anything, it would seem that Bailiff's teams are on a 5 year cycle which would project the next conference title to 2018. But, that frequency leaves much to be desired.
2008: Sagarin - 48
2013: Sagarin - 69
2008 Schedule final Sagarin:
SMU - 149
Memphis - 99
Vandy - 39
Texas - 4
North Texas - 191
Tulsa - 42
Southern Miss - 67
Tulane - 148
UTEP - 90
Army - 121
Marshall - 101
Houston - 52
The 2013 team likely would have lost the bolded two. in addition to the 3 in italics that the 2008 team also lost.
HERE is why comparisons to say the 80's (an era I'm familiar with) are so difficult.
1985
we lost to #9 Miami, #8 Air Force, Texas was 8-4 ranked 20 when we lost to them but unranked at seasons end, #6 A&M, #12 Arkansas, SMU who was #8 the previous year and started in the top 20, but only went 6-5, #17 Baylor and then we lost 24-20 to 4-7 UofH. We beat Lamar, TCU and Tech.
Given those rankings, how would the 2008 and 2013 teams have done?
IMO they beat UH and maybe SMU for 4-5 wins. I just don't see them beating a top 20-30 team because they really didn't come that close. Marshall, like us was hard to pin down.
How does the 1985 team do vs 2008? I suspect we beat SMU, UNT, Tulane, Army, and probably at least two of Marshall, Memphis and UTEP. We don't win the conference, but we're more than likely bowling.
I didn't pick 1985 for any reason other than I know it well and so many of our opponents were ranked.
So while we're better (in those seasons)... are we REALLY that much better?
(09-26-2016 10:16 AM)Pan95 Wrote: [ -> ]One hot button for me that either the current staff or the next staff needs to address is the subject of recruiting physically ready talent
Physically ready talent is going to the P-5. Rice needs to take what it can get and make the most of it.
Quote:Rice needs a dedicated and effective S&C program. ... Rice still has to grow players, but it has to be done in such a way that flexibility and speed are not sacrificed.
I'd rather stay small than lose speed and flexibility and agility. Jimmy Johnson had probably the smallest defense among what would now the be P5 when he was at the U, and he definitely had the smallest defense in the NFL with the Cowboys, and both of those worked out pretty well. He had Chad Hennings in the d-line rotation in Dallas, and Hennings had been an A-10 pilot.
Ham - i dont see the 1985 sagarin, so I am not sure. That said, I pulled 1999, when Rice went 5-6. We were ranked 74
Looking at 2008, this 5-6 team was ranked above and likely would have defeated 7 teams and gone bowling.
Even 2000, when we were an abysmal 3-8 and ranked 108, we would have beaten 5 teams on the 2008 schedule and been in the running for a participation trophy bowl.
Now, 2013: Rice Sagarin - 69
A&M - 22 L
Kansas - 119 W
UH - 50 L
FAU - 87 W
Tulsa - 132 W
UTSA - 80 W
NMSU - 191 W
UTEP - 185 W
UNT - 63 L
LaTech - 166 W
UAB - 167 W
Tulane - 91 W
The 1999 team (5-6) ranked 74 would win 9 games against the 2013 opposition based on Sagarin ratings. Thats nearly double the win total.
The 2001 team (abysmal 3-8) ranked 108 would win 6 games. Doubling their win total.
For gits and shiggles, lets take the infamous 1-10 2005 team. Ranked 130 in Sagarin!
Against 2013, this team outranks and could have won ---> 5 games. And again, in contention for a participation trophy.
In this light, I really really fail to see and understand the bowl-games-are-great attitude. Some of our horrible 90's and 2000 teams would have gone bowling potentially against this opposition and with 40 odd bowls. Let alone the good teams we fielded in those decades.
(09-26-2016 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Physically ready talent is going to the P-5. Rice needs to take what it can get and make the most of it...
I'd rather stay small than lose speed and flexibility and agility. Jimmy Johnson had probably the smallest defense among what would now the be P5 when he was at the U, and he definitely had the smallest defense in the NFL with the Cowboys, and both of those worked out pretty well. He had Chad Hennings in the d-line rotation in Dallas, and Hennings had been an A-10 pilot.
I completely agree. Remember the Iron Owl sessions during the winter? The idea was to take our signees and grow them. That 2013 Liberty Bowl team was filled with undersized signees that grew up in the S&C program without sacrificing speed, quickness, and flexibility. Sure, we had injuries as every program does, but our kids got bigger, faster, and stronger. One example is Jeremy Eddington. He came in roughly 6-2 and 210 and graduated at 250 lbs. Yet he had enough speed to run back a kick against UTEP. Or Charles Ross who signed at 6-1 and 190 lbs. He was 235 lbs when he left in 2013 but left a huge impression against A&M in the 2013 season opener.
You have mentioned contrarian offenses in the past, and I can see your argument for the option. To that end, I would agree with you that going back to a spread, at least early on in the next coaching regime would not be productive. Defense and Special Teams needs to be the priority of the next coach as well as installing an offense that protects the defense. But...if we are going to go to the spread, then we need to sell out to the spread and just resign ourselves to the idea that we will compete in shoot outs.
Another note about small and fast defenses: remember that Tulane defense in 2013 that gave everyone so much trouble? They were built in the mold of the Miami Hurricane defenses. In fact, their coach was an understudy in the Jimmy Johnson era.
(09-26-2016 01:46 PM)Pan95 Wrote: [ -> ]Another note about small and fast defenses: remember that Tulane defense in 2013 that gave everyone so much trouble? They were built in the mold of the Miami Hurricane defenses. In fact, their coach was an understudy in the Jimmy Johnson era.
Tulane was 114th in Total Defense in 2013 including giving up 482 yards per game.
Source:
http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2...am/1042/p3
(09-26-2016 01:49 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2016 01:46 PM)Pan95 Wrote: [ -> ]Another note about small and fast defenses: remember that Tulane defense in 2013 that gave everyone so much trouble? They were built in the mold of the Miami Hurricane defenses. In fact, their coach was an understudy in the Jimmy Johnson era.
Tulane was 114th in Total Defense in 2013 including giving up 482 yards per game.
Source: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/2...am/1042/p3
Wow they were ranked that low? My memory must be flawed. I thought that I remembered Tulane having a very good, fast, and turnover producing defense during 2013. When we played them at home, they gave us a fight.
(09-26-2016 01:30 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]Ham - i dont see the 1985 sagarin, so I am not sure.
(09-26-2016 01:44 PM)Antarius Wrote: [ -> ]In this light, I really really fail to see and understand the bowl-games-are-great attitude.
No Sagarin back in the 80's. Best I can find was purely based on record... we were 90 of 110 at 3-8... had nothing to do with 'quality of wins or losses'. We were tied with TCU, whom we beat. That's why I only felt comfortable assuring the wins against teams ranked north of 120 with 3 others between 90 and 101. It was more about the guaranteed losses than the guaranteed wins. What we knew was that the 1985 team couldn't beat top 25 teams... but then again, neither can we now.
Having said that, I'll take the bowl and it's extra weeks of practice and exposure, no matter how slight over none any day. I'm not disagreeing with it being a 'participation award' of sorts... but It's still better than sitting on your butt at home not even able to practice.
(09-26-2016 07:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I think I fit into the Bailiff's critics category. I don't think I--or any of the other critics--were saying that he could win 7 or 8 consistently, or that doing so was acceptable. I would restate the consensus of the critics more along the lines that winning 7 or 8 would probably be the typical high end, and that it needed to be the low water mark if Rice were to be able to upgrade conferences, eventually and hopefully to P-5 status.
Not sure how much we actually disagree.
I'm sure you remember all the arguments about "plateau." I did not use the word "consensus." There is never a consensus on predictions.
I do think that winning 7-8 consistently, and being located in Houston, will be enough to get us into the MWC or AAC whenever they decide to expand (unless the AAC expands without losing UH, in which case we probably aren't getting in regardless of on-field performance). So after 2014 and even after 2015 I was apprehensive about the risks of the coach behind Door Number 3.
It will take more than 8 wins a year to proceed to P-5, but one step at a time.
I don't like Bailiff's style either and haven't since 2008. I would have wanted him fired after 2010 and 2011 except that our then-AD was a buffoon with a track record of even-worse hires. Then, 2012-14, though not anybody's end goal, was good enough to earn him a reprieve, which is now beyond exhausted.
There is no longer any question of a "plateau" and with his contract down to 2 years, his time is up, much more clearly than last year. My previous post was a response to a question about Luke Turner's speech. I don't think last year's decision was about that and I can't imagine that an emotional speech this year will save Bailiff.