Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

This is an interesting part of the debate about Rice athletics. Many would much rather a coach fail than have him be successful and be hired away.

Most have not gotten over Todd Graham. Many have not gotten over Scott Thompson.

It is not a coincidence that each of their successors have had tenures of sub .500 records that are empirically non-existent elsewhere in college athletics.

I think deep down, many of us believe "yes, gary Anderson did an awesome job at Utah state, but then he left to take big money, so they didn't really achieve anything" or "wow, it was awesome that Florida Gulf Coast made the Sweet 16, but their fans must wish they had lost in first round so the coach wouldn't have gotten hired away"

There is a comfortable stability in mediocrity

(10-13-2015 06:13 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  This is an interesting part of the debate about Rice athletics. Many would much rather a coach fail than have him be successful and be hired away.

Most have not gotten over Todd Graham. Many have not gotten over Scott Thompson.

It is not a coincidence that each of their successors have had tenures of sub .500 records that are empirically non-existent elsewhere in college athletics.

I think deep down, many of us believe "yes, gary Anderson did an awesome job at Utah state, but then he left to take big money, so they didn't really achieve anything" or "wow, it was awesome that Florida Gulf Coast made the Sweet 16, but their fans must wish they had lost in first round so the coach wouldn't have gotten hired away"

There is a comfortable stability in mediocrity

I think most of us that bring up the Toad do so because of HOW he left, not because he left. He showed himself to be just as slimy and despicable when leaving Pitt.

It isn't coaching, but I don't see anyone with ill-will towards CDC who pretty much got hired away due to his success at Rice.

I'm a bit puzzled by the bolded statement. Are you trying to state that programs who lose a winning coach don't hire a replacement that takes the program to below .500?

(10-13-2015 06:13 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  This is an interesting part of the debate about Rice athletics. Many would much rather a coach fail than have him be successful and be hired away.

Most have not gotten over Todd Graham. Many have not gotten over Scott Thompson.

It is not a coincidence that each of their successors have had tenures of sub .500 records that are empirically non-existent elsewhere in college athletics.

I think deep down, many of us believe "yes, gary Anderson did an awesome job at Utah state, but then he left to take big money, so they didn't really achieve anything" or "wow, it was awesome that Florida Gulf Coast made the Sweet 16, but their fans must wish they had lost in first round so the coach wouldn't have gotten hired away"

There is a comfortable stability in mediocrity

Since 2012, Bailiff is much better than .500, although you fairly can call him sub-.500 overall.

I would be happy for Bailiff if he were hired away, but not for us. No one here would begrudge him a better opportunity if it came along. I think people felt differently about Todd Graham's departure than they did Fred Goldsmith's or Scott Thompson's. Goldsmith did good things for us, but by the end of the 1994 season, I was fine with Hatfield as a replacement.

(10-13-2015 04:46 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

Of course not.

(10-13-2015 04:46 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

I think it's pretty obvious to why, which is exactly why there is even a debate on this board: he is not a resounding success at Rice.

And this is why the big debate over Bailiff continues to happen - the evidence does not clearly suggest he is horrible, but it also does not clearly suggest is in an outstanding coach. The evidence can be used to show that he is very successful in some aspects (player graduation, NFL player development, bowl wins) and he is struggling in others (beating P5 teams, beating highly ranked teams).

So that is why you see a lot of people debating for his firing (he has had his chance and hasn't fixed his shortcomings) and for his retention (he bring a lot of positives and the risk of losing positive momentum is too great). I don't think you'll see a lot of G-5 coaches get snatched up when these questions are at hand.

I was shocked how much Bailiff was being paid.

(10-13-2015 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 04:46 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

I think it's pretty obvious to why, which is exactly why there is even a debate on this board: he is not a resounding success at Rice.

And this is why the big debate over Bailiff continues to happen - the evidence does not clearly suggest he is horrible, but it also does not clearly suggest is in an outstanding coach. The evidence can be used to show that he is very successful in some aspects (player graduation, NFL player development, bowl wins) and he is struggling in others (beating P5 teams, beating highly ranked teams).

So that is why you see a lot of people debating for his firing (he has had his chance and hasn't fixed his shortcomings) and for his retention (he bring a lot of positives and the risk of losing positive momentum is too great). I don't think you'll see a lot of G-5 coaches get snatched up when these questions are at hand.

(10-13-2015 08:50 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I was shocked how much Bailiff was being paid.

(10-13-2015 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 04:46 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

I think it's pretty obvious to why, which is exactly why there is even a debate on this board: he is not a resounding success at Rice.

And this is why the big debate over Bailiff continues to happen - the evidence does not clearly suggest he is horrible, but it also does not clearly suggest is in an outstanding coach. The evidence can be used to show that he is very successful in some aspects (player graduation, NFL player development, bowl wins) and he is struggling in others (beating P5 teams, beating highly ranked teams).

So that is why you see a lot of people debating for his firing (he has had his chance and hasn't fixed his shortcomings) and for his retention (he bring a lot of positives and the risk of losing positive momentum is too great). I don't think you'll see a lot of G-5 coaches get snatched up when these questions are at hand.

As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

(10-13-2015 09:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 08:50 PM)OldOwl Wrote:  I was shocked how much Bailiff was being paid.

(10-13-2015 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 04:46 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  Given Bailiff success - the three straight bowl appearances, one would think his name is being tossed around as a replacement somewhere. Any rumors on this front?

I think it's pretty obvious to why, which is exactly why there is even a debate on this board: he is not a resounding success at Rice.

And this is why the big debate over Bailiff continues to happen - the evidence does not clearly suggest he is horrible, but it also does not clearly suggest is in an outstanding coach. The evidence can be used to show that he is very successful in some aspects (player graduation, NFL player development, bowl wins) and he is struggling in others (beating P5 teams, beating highly ranked teams).

So that is why you see a lot of people debating for his firing (he has had his chance and hasn't fixed his shortcomings) and for his retention (he bring a lot of positives and the risk of losing positive momentum is too great). I don't think you'll see a lot of G-5 coaches get snatched up when these questions are at hand.

As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

Since everyone on this board thinks we are too good for CUSA we should be the paying the top salary and it shouldn't be close. It is much easier to do that now than when UH, ECU, UCF, etc were in the conference with us. Gotta pay to play. Right now we get what we pay for, one of the top few programs in the conference but not head and shoulders above the other top programs (and 40th percentile in the country).

(10-13-2015 09:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

To me, if the biggest selling point of Bailiff is that he "gets Rice" and graduates players etc etc. then he is very overpaid. We can get a guy who "gets Rice" for probably 1/8th the cost.

He is being paid to coach football and not cheat. His salary should be based on that performance and that alone. The rest, we can find someone for much cheaper.

(10-13-2015 10:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

To me, if the biggest selling point of Bailiff is that he "gets Rice" and graduates players etc etc. then he is very overpaid. We can get a guy who "gets Rice" for probably 1/8th the cost.

He is being paid to coach football and not cheat. His salary should be based on that performance and that alone. The rest, we can find someone for much cheaper.

You act like Bailiff hasn't won a game in the last 2 years. We could be USM you know, or New Mexico State. Or UTEP.... etc. Bailiff has us as one of the top few programs in CUSA currently (last 3 years aggregate) and that is how he is paid. So there is your performance part.

Gary Patterson is a pretty good coach who's got a good idea what it takes to succeed at a Texas academic school. We should get one the top assistants from his coaching tree.

(10-13-2015 10:23 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

To me, if the biggest selling point of Bailiff is that he "gets Rice" and graduates players etc etc. then he is very overpaid. We can get a guy who "gets Rice" for probably 1/8th the cost.

He is being paid to coach football and not cheat. His salary should be based on that performance and that alone. The rest, we can find someone for much cheaper.

You act like Bailiff hasn't won a game in the last 2 years. We could be USM you know, or New Mexico State. Or UTEP.... etc. Bailiff has us as one of the top few programs in CUSA currently (last 3 years aggregate) and that is how he is paid. So there is your performance part.

To everyone but the 100 or so people on this board, WE ARE USM OR UTEP OR NEW MEXICO STATE.

We keep talking about # of wins, when thats the equivalent of totally missing the forest for the trees. No one cares but the few people here. Top few of C-USA or bottom few of C-USA, its the same to everyone; the program isn't making money either way or growing its fan base.

Ant, you really need to stay on topic with your arguments. Every single time I feel like you're in a Primary Debate, just ducking and weaving.

You make the comment that his salary is based on performance, wel, that salary falls about in line with his performance overall with college football (around 80 like I posted earlier, based on Sagarin) and one of the top CUSA programs (championship in '13, Top 4 last year). So instead of deflecting the criticism of your initial comment, why not address it?

You have some point that arguing about this might be missing the forest for the trees, but if you want that to stop happening, stop pointing out the trees!

(10-13-2015 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ant, you really need to stay on topic with your arguments. Every single time I feel like you're in a Primary Debate, just ducking and weaving.

You make the comment that his salary is based on performance, wel, that salary falls about in line with his performance overall with college football (around 80 like I posted earlier, based on Sagarin) and one of the top CUSA programs (championship in '13, Top 4 last year). So instead of deflecting the criticism of your initial comment, why not address it?

You have some point that arguing about this might be missing the forest for the trees, but if you want that to stop happening, stop pointing out the trees!

Performance does not mean strictly wins. The second reply was not a duck or whatever, it was a clarification.

Performance is more than just winning a game against C-USA, its building a program, building fans, building support, growing relevance. We have not done that.

P.S I am awaiting a response in the mid year grades thread. I replied in detail exactly why beating up on C-USA would not make us suddenly media darlings and a house hold name.

(10-13-2015 10:29 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:23 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:18 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 09:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  As in total compensation because coaching salaries are now so high? Or relative to his peers? He is in the lower 40th percentile in salaries in CFB, but is the 2nd highest paid coach in CUSA.

To me, if the biggest selling point of Bailiff is that he "gets Rice" and graduates players etc etc. then he is very overpaid. We can get a guy who "gets Rice" for probably 1/8th the cost.

He is being paid to coach football and not cheat. His salary should be based on that performance and that alone. The rest, we can find someone for much cheaper.

You act like Bailiff hasn't won a game in the last 2 years. We could be USM you know, or New Mexico State. Or UTEP.... etc. Bailiff has us as one of the top few programs in CUSA currently (last 3 years aggregate) and that is how he is paid. So there is your performance part.

To everyone but the 100 or so people on this board, WE ARE USM OR UTEP OR NEW MEXICO STATE.

We keep talking about # of wins, when thats the equivalent of totally missing the forest for the trees. No one cares but the few people here. Top few of C-USA or bottom few of C-USA, its the same to everyone; the program isn't making money either way or growing its fan base.

Easily the best post of 2015.

(10-13-2015 10:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-13-2015 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ant, you really need to stay on topic with your arguments. Every single time I feel like you're in a Primary Debate, just ducking and weaving.

You make the comment that his salary is based on performance, wel, that salary falls about in line with his performance overall with college football (around 80 like I posted earlier, based on Sagarin) and one of the top CUSA programs (championship in '13, Top 4 last year). So instead of deflecting the criticism of your initial comment, why not address it?

You have some point that arguing about this might be missing the forest for the trees, but if you want that to stop happening, stop pointing out the trees!

Performance does not mean strictly wins. The second reply was not a duck or whatever, it was a clarification.

Performance is more than just winning a game against C-USA, its building a program, building fans, building support, growing relevance. We have not done that.

P.S I am awaiting a response in the mid year grades thread. I replied in detail exactly why beating up on C-USA would not make us suddenly media darlings and a house hold name.

Waiting for a response? I asked why you felt that UH and SMU were getting the spotlight and you answered. What are you looking for a response to? You didn't ask a question or really present anything that seemed like it warranted a response. You really just provided an example of why Marshall didn't get a ton of attention after they lost and answered my question.

But I'll respond to your comment above. I perfectly understand that performance is not just how we are performing in CUSA, but if you start discussing coaching salary with respect to Bailiff's performance, why isn't it fair to point out that we are getting what we pay for? Shouldn't that be a metric with which we are evaluating a coach? If we were paying him in the top 50 percentile of the country, I would get the frustration with him underperforming, but he essentially isn't. In essence, it seems like you are expecting to receive more worth than what Rice is willing to shell out.

Judging by your signature you are in consulting, is that correct? Or at least some sort of line of work that causes you to travel a lot. When you fly for work and pay for a ticket on Southwest, you don't expect to get a first class Emirates experience, do you? You also don't expect to get a Spirit Airlines experience.

I've said it before, you get what you pay for.

(10-13-2015 11:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Judging by your signature you are in consulting, is that correct? Or at least some sort of line of work that causes you to travel a lot. When you fly for work and pay for a ticket on Southwest, you don't expect to get a first class Emirates experience, do you? You also don't expect to get a Spirit Airlines experience.

I've said it before, you get what you pay for.

Yes you do. However the same 1000 dollars gets you a coach seat in Emirates or United. Which would you rather fly? Of course, you won't get Emirates First Class, but there are huge differences even within the same price bracket. I fully expect that for our facilities and salaries, we will not be #1 in the country. Thats a far cry from where we are now, however.

All I ask for is the Emirates or Qatar coach experience for the dollars we spend. Not the Air India or United coach one we are getting.

(10-13-2015 06:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think it's pretty obvious to why, which is exactly why there is even a debate on this board: he is not a resounding success at Rice.

I may be completely alone on this, but I don't think it's that far-fetched, assuming we finish this year with another winning record. That is as much about how Rice is perceived as his performance.

He was rumored for the Wake Forest job after 2013. Instead they hired Dave Clawson, who was likewise not a resounding success at Bowling Green (32-30 overall, 0-2 in bowls, both minor).

Obviously he isn't going to USC (either one) but somewhere like Iowa State might take him. Keep in mind, Kansas hired Beaty (!), a guy that posters here wanted to fire as offensive coordinator.

(10-13-2015 10:28 PM)Pellet Wrote:  Gary Patterson is a pretty good coach who's got a good idea what it takes to succeed at a Texas academic school. We should get one the top assistants from his coaching tree.

Bailiff came from the same coaching tree that Patterson did, so we can check that box off.