(10-17-2015 02:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

Alabama level recruits? Nice straw man there. I never bought into the EZF as a silver bullet either, but I do expect it to help somewhat with both recruiting and preparation.

WBB has yet to play a single game.

I understand the frustration. I just don't think you know enough about college football for me to care what you think Rice should do.

I have a lot of confidence in Karlgaard. I don't expect him to fire Bailiff, but if he does, I will support it. Until then, he has only made one move in football, which was to give Bailiff an extension.

(10-17-2015 02:38 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  For Rice to be a consistently top-50 national football program, Rice will have to change. Admissions will have to be weakened for football. Money will have to be poured into the program. Risks will have to be taken on marginal students who are potential difference-makers. There are simply NOT that many quality players available who also have the academics to succeed at Rice right now.

If you're willing to sacrifice the higher ground and jump into the mud, Rice can be top-50 quality.

Stanford.

This argument is now invalid

(10-17-2015 02:38 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  For Rice to be a consistently top-50 national football program, Rice will have to change. Admissions will have to be weakened for football. Money will have to be poured into the program. Risks will have to be taken on marginal students who are potential difference-makers. There are simply NOT that many quality players available who also have the academics to succeed at Rice right now.

If you're willing to sacrifice the higher ground and jump into the mud, Rice can be top-50 quality.

I don't agree with that -- see Stanford, Northwestern, and now Duke. It's going to be difficult to get there from C-USA though.

(10-17-2015 02:45 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

Alabama level recruits? Nice straw man there. I never bought into the EZF as a silver bullet either, but I do expect it to help somewhat with both recruiting and preparation.

WBB has yet to play a single game.

I understand the frustration. I just don't think you know enough about college football for me to care what you think Rice should do.

I have a lot of confidence in Karlgaard. I don't expect him to fire Bailiff, but if he does, I will support it. Until then, he has only made one move in football, which was to give Bailiff an extension.

Still waiting for a counter solution.

It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

As for Alabama level recruits it was an exaggeration. Although given how we look against good teams the only way we could win was having recruits at that level. Unclear as how the EZF improves prep

(10-17-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:45 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

Alabama level recruits? Nice straw man there. I never bought into the EZF as a silver bullet either, but I do expect it to help somewhat with both recruiting and preparation.

WBB has yet to play a single game.

I understand the frustration. I just don't think you know enough about college football for me to care what you think Rice should do.

I have a lot of confidence in Karlgaard. I don't expect him to fire Bailiff, but if he does, I will support it. Until then, he has only made one move in football, which was to give Bailiff an extension.

Still waiting for a counter solution.

It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

As for Alabama level recruits it was an exaggeration. Although given how we look against good teams the only way we could win was having recruits at that level. Unclear as how the EZF improves prep

Yes that would be ideal. I don't understand where you think the money is going to come from? How many times are we just going to repeat this loop on the board? Rice was awful at football for 35+ years before Bailiff. Now we have winning seasons in our down years and go to bowls. And WIN. So unless JK buys a lottery ticket with department money and wins Bailiff is low priority.

(10-17-2015 02:55 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:45 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

Alabama level recruits? Nice straw man there. I never bought into the EZF as a silver bullet either, but I do expect it to help somewhat with both recruiting and preparation.

WBB has yet to play a single game.

I understand the frustration. I just don't think you know enough about college football for me to care what you think Rice should do.

I have a lot of confidence in Karlgaard. I don't expect him to fire Bailiff, but if he does, I will support it. Until then, he has only made one move in football, which was to give Bailiff an extension.

Still waiting for a counter solution.

It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

As for Alabama level recruits it was an exaggeration. Although given how we look against good teams the only way we could win was having recruits at that level. Unclear as how the EZF improves prep

Yes that would be ideal. I don't understand where you think the money is going to come from? How many times are we just going to repeat this loop on the board? Rice was awful at football for 35+ years before Bailiff. Now we have winning seasons in our down years and go to bowls. And WIN. So unless JK buys a lottery ticket with department money and wins Bailiff is low priority.

And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:55 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:45 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'm all ears for other viable alternatives. It's pretty clear that the status quo isn't working and isn't going to work. It's not like the EZF will suddenly fix out preparation issues and bring Alabama level recruits to Rice.

Nfl coordinator or up and coming assistant from College. We did it in MBB and now WBB.

I'm open to alternative solutions. Just not the sit around for year 10 of the same old march towards irrelevance and epic beatdowns against good teams.

Alabama level recruits? Nice straw man there. I never bought into the EZF as a silver bullet either, but I do expect it to help somewhat with both recruiting and preparation.

WBB has yet to play a single game.

I understand the frustration. I just don't think you know enough about college football for me to care what you think Rice should do.

I have a lot of confidence in Karlgaard. I don't expect him to fire Bailiff, but if he does, I will support it. Until then, he has only made one move in football, which was to give Bailiff an extension.

Still waiting for a counter solution.

It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

As for Alabama level recruits it was an exaggeration. Although given how we look against good teams the only way we could win was having recruits at that level. Unclear as how the EZF improves prep

Yes that would be ideal. I don't understand where you think the money is going to come from? How many times are we just going to repeat this loop on the board? Rice was awful at football for 35+ years before Bailiff. Now we have winning seasons in our down years and go to bowls. And WIN. So unless JK buys a lottery ticket with department money and wins Bailiff is low priority.

And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

They get it, but mediocrity is good enough.

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

One point of clarification. We spent 20 years losing to those teams in the bottom quartile, along with everybody else. We are at least beating them now. And that, sad to say, is improvement.

(10-17-2015 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

One point of clarification. We spent 20 years losing to those teams in the bottom quartile, along with everybody else. We are at least beating them now. And that, sad to say, is improvement.

Walt doesn't believe the numbers that say our schedule is about the same. Don't even try.

Also. WE HAVE NO MONEY. Donate a large sum. Or convince the board to use the endowment. Or just stop whining about a coach that wins.

(10-17-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Still waiting for a counter solution.

Your "solution," as far as I can tell, is to fire Bailiff and then trust Karlgaard -- who gave Bailiff an extension! -- to hire some Notbailiff from the pool of NFL coordinators and ex-NFL coordinators.

My suggestion is to trust Karlgaard on the entire matter. I don't know if this is a solution, but I think it's our best shot.

Quote:It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

You have made it so.

(10-17-2015 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

One point of clarification. We spent 20 years losing to those teams in the bottom quartile, along with everybody else. We are at least beating them now. And that, sad to say, is improvement.

Owl69- that's like discussion and arguing over who's better, the Jaguars or the Titans. Meanwhile the Packers and Patriots are playing a whole different game.

Yes it's better now than then, but neither are even close to good enough. And we shouldn't settle for better than it was previously

(10-17-2015 03:18 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:It's easy to throw stones and state that I don't know enough.

You have made it so.

I'd prefer to discuss the merits of he argument rather than go down the personal attack route.

Enjoy the rest of Bailiffs year 9.

(10-17-2015 03:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

One point of clarification. We spent 20 years losing to those teams in the bottom quartile, along with everybody else. We are at least beating them now. And that, sad to say, is improvement.

Owl69- that's like discussion and arguing over who's better, the Jaguars or the Titans. Meanwhile the Packers and Patriots are playing a whole different game.
Yes it's better now than then, but neither are even close to good enough. And we shouldn't settle for better than it was previously

Actually, I think it's more like comparing my godson's 4th grade team to the Packers and Patriots. The Jaguars and Titans occasionally beat the Packers or Patriots.

My only point is that those who dismiss what we are doing now as beating only the dregs of collegiate football are ignoring the fact that we spent 20 years not beating even those dregs.

(10-17-2015 03:25 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I'd prefer to discuss the merits of he argument rather than go down the personal attack route.

Enjoy the rest of Bailiffs year 9.

Is it a personal attack to have noticed that anytime anybody tries to get specific (and plenty of other times) you pivot to the NFL?

Feel free to respond to the rest of my post. Do you trust the person who gave Bailiff an extension to hire his replacement, or should we fire Karlgaard too?

(10-17-2015 03:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 03:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And we have winning seasons ONLY because we play two-thirds of our games against teams ranked in the bottom quartile of college football, which was never the case before Bailiff arrived and we moved into CUSA. What don't you understand about that?

One point of clarification. We spent 20 years losing to those teams in the bottom quartile, along with everybody else. We are at least beating them now. And that, sad to say, is improvement.

Owl69- that's like discussion and arguing over who's better, the Jaguars or the Titans. Meanwhile the Packers and Patriots are playing a whole different game.
Yes it's better now than then, but neither are even close to good enough. And we shouldn't settle for better than it was previously

Actually, I think it's more like comparing my godson's 4th grade team to the Packers and Patriots. The Jaguars and Titans occasionally beat the Packers or Patriots.

My only point is that those who dismiss what we are doing now as beating only the dregs of collegiate football are ignoring the fact that we spent 20 years not beating even those dregs.

With all due respect 69, which 20 years are you referring to? Seriously. Yes, we went through a miserable stretch record-wise from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s, but who do we play on our schedule who were bottom quartile of college football?

(10-17-2015 06:40 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  With all due respect 69, which 20 years are you referring to? Seriously. Yes, we went through a miserable stretch record-wise from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s, but who do we play on our schedule who were bottom quartile of college football?

I haven't looked them up on Massey or Sagarin or any other rating service, but I can think of a bunch of losses to teams that, if they weren't in the bottom quartile, they had to be very close, including:

Baylor - 1968 (this game was over Thanksgiving break so no students, teams won 2 games between them all year, and weather was godawful; if there were 1,000 actual paid admissions, I would be surprised)
Cincinnati - 1974
TCU - 1975, 1977 (I don't think TCU won a game between those two), 1979
SW Louisiana - 1982, 1988
Minnesota - 1983
SW Texas - 1986
North Texas - 1988
Duke - 1992

(10-17-2015 07:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 06:40 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  With all due respect 69, which 20 years are you referring to? Seriously. Yes, we went through a miserable stretch record-wise from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s, but who do we play on our schedule who were bottom quartile of college football?

I haven't looked them up on Massey or Sagarin or any other rating service, but I can think of a bunch of losses to teams that, if they weren't in the bottom quartile, they had to be very close, including:

Baylor - 1968 (this game was over Thanksgiving break so no students, teams won 2 games between them all year, and weather was godawful; if there were 1,000 actual paid admissions, I would be surprised)
Cincinnati - 1974
TCU - 1975, 1977 (I don't think TCU won a game between those two), 1979
SW Louisiana - 1982, 1988
Minnesota - 1983
SW Texas - 1986
North Texas - 1988
Duke - 1992

Yeah, and we lost to ODU last year, and should have lost to FAU last weekend.

(10-17-2015 07:09 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 07:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 06:40 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  With all due respect 69, which 20 years are you referring to? Seriously. Yes, we went through a miserable stretch record-wise from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s, but who do we play on our schedule who were bottom quartile of college football?

I haven't looked them up on Massey or Sagarin or any other rating service, but I can think of a bunch of losses to teams that, if they weren't in the bottom quartile, they had to be very close, including:
Baylor - 1968 (this game was over Thanksgiving break so no students, teams won 2 games between them all year, and weather was godawful; if there were 1,000 actual paid admissions, I would be surprised)
Cincinnati - 1974
TCU - 1975, 1977 (I don't think TCU won a game between those two), 1979
SW Louisiana - 1982, 1988
Minnesota - 1983
SW Texas - 1986
North Texas - 1988
Duke - 1992

Yeah, and we lost to ODU last year, and should have lost to FAU last weekend.

I'd put those two in the same category. But at least we won 1 of them.

(10-17-2015 07:09 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 07:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 06:40 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  With all due respect 69, which 20 years are you referring to? Seriously. Yes, we went through a miserable stretch record-wise from the mid-1970s through the mid-80s, but who do we play on our schedule who were bottom quartile of college football?

I haven't looked them up on Massey or Sagarin or any other rating service, but I can think of a bunch of losses to teams that, if they weren't in the bottom quartile, they had to be very close, including:

Baylor - 1968 (this game was over Thanksgiving break so no students, teams won 2 games between them all year, and weather was godawful; if there were 1,000 actual paid admissions, I would be surprised)
Cincinnati - 1974
TCU - 1975, 1977 (I don't think TCU won a game between those two), 1979
SW Louisiana - 1982, 1988
Minnesota - 1983
SW Texas - 1986
North Texas - 1988
Duke - 1992

Yeah, and we lost to ODU last year, and should have lost to FAU last weekend.

Now we are including "should of lost" to try to prove your points. We should've beat Texas too so we must have a great team.

You're incredible.

(10-17-2015 02:46 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 02:38 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  For Rice to be a consistently top-50 national football program, Rice will have to change. Admissions will have to be weakened for football. Money will have to be poured into the program. Risks will have to be taken on marginal students who are potential difference-makers. There are simply NOT that many quality players available who also have the academics to succeed at Rice right now.

If you're willing to sacrifice the higher ground and jump into the mud, Rice can be top-50 quality.

Stanford.

This argument is now invalid

If that's your honest response, you're displaying a lack of reading comprehension. Rice isn't even in the same city limits as Stanford in financing athletics. Maybe not even on the same continent.

Stanford, Duke, Northwestern -- all three make Rice look like Little Sisters of the Poor in finances for athletics. Unless Rice jumps into the mud and loosens up the endowment, or one of you JP Getty guys drops a hundred million on the programs, it will be tough to be a national force.