(11-17-2014 10:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: Bailiff is the only coach I have ever heard call OOC games "preseason games"...and I'm growing tired of his continued refrain (repeated at today's presser) that we've got to be better prepared...to execute better...to cut down on mistakes...and to play 4 quarters....and it's on him...and then we proceed to make the exact same mistakes game after game after game.
+1. Time after time after time, against tough opponents, Bailiff's teams turtle and get their butts kicked.
(11-17-2014 11:50 PM)Lumberjack99 Wrote: Is interesting how some folks are satisfied with six wins and bowl eligibility. These are the same folks that think Northwestern beating ND was not possible or LA Monroe taking T AM down to the wire was a fluke.
(11-18-2014 08:32 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: La-Monroe pressing A&M was a fluke. Play that game 100 times and A&M wins 95 to 99, and wins handily 70 to 85 times. La Monroe deserves to be commended no doubt, but that meets my definition of a fluke.
It's unlikely, but we need to be putting ourselves in a position to win a non-conference game against a prestige opponent every single time we play them, and then we might win one.
(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: Right now, I don't think David Bailiff can get Rice football to top-25/P-5 status. Number one, I'm not sure anyone can. Number two, I acknowledge that he has made great strides, but his strides have come almost entirely from upgrading the talent through better recruiting. I just don't think there's much more hay to be baled in that field. Other than Stanford and Notre Dame, who have unique advantages peculiar to themselves, the P-5 private universities pretty much plateau out at recruiting only a short distance above us, and even they have advantages over us since we're not P-5. We've gone about as far as we can getting better players, to move up further we have to do a better job of getting the players we have to play better. We need to maintain the talent level we have now, or slightly better (and only slightly seems to be the maximum realistic possibility), and get that talent to overachieve. I don't see any other realistic way to break out significantly above where we are now, and I don't see that being something that David Bailiff can do.
I'm willing to be proved wrong in that assessment, and as long as Bailiff can maintain at or above the current level, I'm willing to give him more time to get it done... There's nobody who's obviously better knocking at our door, and maybe it is an intelligent strategy to hold on and solidify what we have right now before trying to find the person who can lead us to the next level.
I agree with everything but the bolded parts.
Bailiff has proven over 8 years that he cannot get this team to perform at the highest levels of which they are athletically capable, and that he cannot take the program beyond being in a G5 title fight in his very best years. We need someone who can get the program to be in a G5 title fight every single year, finish in the top half of FBS every single year, Finish in the top 25 in the best years, play prestige non-conference opponents well (and close) every single time, and rise up and beat them in the best performances.
I am certain Bailiff is not that guy. Hanging on to him is delaying the inevitable. I'd take someone with a 2% chance of being that guy over Bailiff, because I'm more than 98% sure it isn't DB. This isn't our guy. This guy has had 8 years and hasn't approached the level the program should expect of itself even once. [Insert your favorite prestige coach in the history of college football] isn't going to come walking up to us. Whoever we get is going to be a risk where we're not sure if he's that guy or if he's right in this way or another. But we already
know that it's not DB, so we need to start moving on and taking those risks now.
I don't know if Muschamp is that guy, and I have some serious concerns about whether or not he has a real commitment to academics, which is a must-have for me. But I'd try it out over Bailiff now.