http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-jobs-best

Between Illinois and North Texas?

Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

What is the story at Pitt? Narduzzi is first year and doing OK. Is he being rumored for one of the Big 10 jobs.

(11-05-2015 12:34 AM)Bailiff_Lingo_Bingo Wrote:  http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-jobs-best

Between Illinois and North Texas?

That article hit on something I really hadn't considered before with regards to recruiting high school students in Texas (when they talked about UNT). Some students might actually have had better facilities in high school as compared to Rice.

Also, I'm not surprised about how they rank these programs in terms of attractiveness. It appears that some posters are likely not too far off when discussing the challenges Rice has faced in the past/may face in the future in attracting a head coach. Now, I know these authors are not experts on the subject, but they bring up the financial support of the university, the access to recruits, and the proven ceiling of the program as criteria that head coaching hires would consider, which mysef and some of other posters have received some push back on.

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

It is unfortunate, but we would likely be at or near the bottom of any list of coach openings. What about our program is attractive to outside candidates as opposed to others? The only program I can think of that has been mentioned is Hawaii because of recruiting, but even Hawaii means you get to live there. Maybe Toledo? But that's only because I don't know a damn thing about their program.

Well, in terms of being in a located major city with a lot of recruiting nearby, there aren't that many that compare among the G5--UH of course, Temple, FIU, SMU, San Diego State, San Jose St (maybe), UNT and FAU (if you stretch it)

We are unquestionably the premier undergraduate institution in the G5 (but of course special mention is due to the Service Academies)

Now you look at that list and it's not the perennial powers of the G5, so maybe the things that are our apparent strengths really aren't.

It's hard for me to believe that it's all about facilities. I don't have the data. Did NIU build like crazy before they started blowing out Big 10 teams?

And by the way, NIU doesn't draw squat, but I'm guessing its a small stadium that's pretty full.

I'm wondering if its not butts in seats but rather the feel of vitality. not a real insight to wonder if our stadium is too big.

I guess where I'm at is that you have to get the right guy, make things happen and facilities follow. We know the Rice baseball story, but I think that is likely the case at Boise, NIU, and lots of other G5. Maybe Bailiff is the guy and the EZF is the payoff and we're the tortoise not the hare.

(11-05-2015 07:24 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

It is unfortunate, but we would likely be at or near the bottom of any list of coach openings. What about our program is attractive to outside candidates as opposed to others? The only program I can think of that has been mentioned is Hawaii because of recruiting, but even Hawaii means you get to live there. Maybe Toledo? But that's only because I don't know a damn thing about their program.

Each one of the three high schools (all some of the biggest high schools in Texas in terms of enrollment) in my town all had indoor practice facilities with a 75 yard length field (full regulation width). The one at my school housed the weight room as well. Great multipurpose facility as every team at the school has access to and used that facility.

(11-05-2015 07:53 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Well, in terms of being in a located major city with a lot of recruiting nearby, there aren't that many that compare among the G5--UH of course, Temple, FIU, SMU, San Diego State, San Jose St (maybe), UNT and FAU (if you stretch it)

We are unquestionably the premier undergraduate institution in the G5 (but of course special mention is due to the Service Academies)

Now you look at that list and it's not the perennial powers of the G5, so maybe the things that are our apparent strengths really aren't.

It's hard for me to believe that it's all about facilities. I don't have the data. Did NIU build like crazy before they started blowing out Big 10 teams?

And by the way, NIU doesn't draw squat, but I'm guessing its a small stadium that's pretty full.

I'm wondering if its not butts in seats but rather the feel of vitality. not a real insight to wonder if our stadium is too big.

I guess where I'm at is that you have to get the right guy, make things happen and facilities follow. We know the Rice baseball story, but I think that is likely the case at Boise, NIU, and lots of other G5. Maybe Bailiff is the guy and the EZF is the payoff and we're the tortoise not the hare.

I won't say if Bailiff is or is not the guy. I like him, I support him, but I'm also aware that he may not be the guy long term. However, I have to agree with the bold. Rice, whether we want to admit it or not, is currently an athletic institution of incremental transformation. I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years. You don't overcome years of institutional neglect, administrative apathy, or public perception in a short amount of time. Maybe if we were only dealing with institutional neglect, but had Power 5 resources, we could use those resources to quickly vault ourselves upwards when/if we made up our minds. Or if we had wealthy alumni really to intervene (Brian Patterson notwithstanding) such as what TCU and SMU had, and in conjunction with an administration willing to allow Rice to compensate well a football coach (June Jones comes to mind), we could overcome.

But what I think is lost many times when the fire/keep David debate comes up is that we are not dealing with one or two factors, rather we are dealing with a myriad of factors that over the past 40 years have grown into an elephant of a problem. We have many problems other than David Bailiff. Are we willing to shell out $2 million for a coach? History says no. We have locker rooms that we refuse to show recruits and a beautiful stadium that today is not sorely pressed to compete with high school stadiums. We want to get into a Power 5 conference. Well, think of the last message we sent to a Power 5 attendee: namely LSU of the SEC. We as an institution lacked the vision and the will to transform our athletics when the alleged invitation was offered. Then we get left behind during the SWC presumably because we were perceived as not willing to step up. What I am saying is that we have so much many issues to address. If we let go of Bailiff without continuing to acknowledge and address that larger scope of issues that have held Rice back for the past 40 years, we will be in the same situation 10 years from now. Bailiff did not hold Rice back over the past 40 years, neither did Hatfield, Graham, or Fred Goldsmith. Rice held Rice back. Rice has been beating Rice for a long time, well before David lost to Nichols State. The EZF is a step in that direction. Our AD is a step in that direction. And regardless of how poor our competition and conference is, going to bowl games is step in that direction.

My opinion.

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:53 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Well, in terms of being in a located major city with a lot of recruiting nearby, there aren't that many that compare among the G5--UH of course, Temple, FIU, SMU, San Diego State, San Jose St (maybe), UNT and FAU (if you stretch it)

We are unquestionably the premier undergraduate institution in the G5 (but of course special mention is due to the Service Academies)

Now you look at that list and it's not the perennial powers of the G5, so maybe the things that are our apparent strengths really aren't.

It's hard for me to believe that it's all about facilities. I don't have the data. Did NIU build like crazy before they started blowing out Big 10 teams?

And by the way, NIU doesn't draw squat, but I'm guessing its a small stadium that's pretty full.

I'm wondering if its not butts in seats but rather the feel of vitality. not a real insight to wonder if our stadium is too big.

I guess where I'm at is that you have to get the right guy, make things happen and facilities follow. We know the Rice baseball story, but I think that is likely the case at Boise, NIU, and lots of other G5. Maybe Bailiff is the guy and the EZF is the payoff and we're the tortoise not the hare.

I won't say if Bailiff is or is not the guy. I like him, I support him, but I'm also aware that he may not be the guy long term. However, I have to agree with the bold. Rice, whether we want to admit it or not, is currently an athletic institution of incremental transformation. I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of dysfunction Owl69 often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years. You don't overcome years of institutional neglect, administrative apathy, or public perception in a short amount of time. Maybe if we were only dealing with institutional neglect, but had Power 5 resources, we could use those resources to quickly vault ourselves when we made up our minds. Or if we had wealthy alumni really to intervene (Brian Patterson notwithstanding) such as what TCU and SMU had, and in conjunction with an administration willing to allow Rice to compensate well a football coach (June Jones comes to mind), we could overcome.

But what I think is lost many times the debate comes up is that we are not dealing with one or two factors, rather we are dealing with a myriad of factors that over the past 40 years have grown into an elephant of a problem. We have many problems other than David Bailiff. Are we willing to shell out $2 million for a coach? History says no. We have locker rooms that we refuse to show recruits. A beautiful stadium that today is not sorely pressed to compete with high school stadiums. We want to get into a Power 5 conference. Well, think of the last message we sent to a Power 5 attendee: the SEC. We as an institution lacked the vision and the will to transform our athletics when the alleged invitation was offered. Then we get left behind during the SWC presumably because we were perceived as not willing to step up. What I am saying is that we have so much to address. If we let go of Bailiff without continuing to acknowledge and address that larger scope of issues that have held Rice back for the past 40 years, we will be in the same situation 10 years from now. Bailiff did not hold Rice back over the past 40 years, neither did Hatfield, Graham. Rice held Rice back. Rice has been beating Rice for a long time, well before David lost to Nichols State. The EZF is a step in that direction. Our AD is a step in that direction. And regardless of how poor our competition and conference is, going to bowl games is step in that direction.

My opinion.

All very valid and logical.

But emotionally, I want a new coach and I want him ASAP. Nine years is enough.

(11-05-2015 10:31 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 07:53 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  Well, in terms of being in a located major city with a lot of recruiting nearby, there aren't that many that compare among the G5--UH of course, Temple, FIU, SMU, San Diego State, San Jose St (maybe), UNT and FAU (if you stretch it)

We are unquestionably the premier undergraduate institution in the G5 (but of course special mention is due to the Service Academies)

Now you look at that list and it's not the perennial powers of the G5, so maybe the things that are our apparent strengths really aren't.

It's hard for me to believe that it's all about facilities. I don't have the data. Did NIU build like crazy before they started blowing out Big 10 teams?

And by the way, NIU doesn't draw squat, but I'm guessing its a small stadium that's pretty full.

I'm wondering if its not butts in seats but rather the feel of vitality. not a real insight to wonder if our stadium is too big.

I guess where I'm at is that you have to get the right guy, make things happen and facilities follow. We know the Rice baseball story, but I think that is likely the case at Boise, NIU, and lots of other G5. Maybe Bailiff is the guy and the EZF is the payoff and we're the tortoise not the hare.

I won't say if Bailiff is or is not the guy. I like him, I support him, but I'm also aware that he may not be the guy long term. However, I have to agree with the bold. Rice, whether we want to admit it or not, is currently an athletic institution of incremental transformation. I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of dysfunction Owl69 often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years. You don't overcome years of institutional neglect, administrative apathy, or public perception in a short amount of time. Maybe if we were only dealing with institutional neglect, but had Power 5 resources, we could use those resources to quickly vault ourselves when we made up our minds. Or if we had wealthy alumni really to intervene (Brian Patterson notwithstanding) such as what TCU and SMU had, and in conjunction with an administration willing to allow Rice to compensate well a football coach (June Jones comes to mind), we could overcome.

But what I think is lost many times the debate comes up is that we are not dealing with one or two factors, rather we are dealing with a myriad of factors that over the past 40 years have grown into an elephant of a problem. We have many problems other than David Bailiff. Are we willing to shell out $2 million for a coach? History says no. We have locker rooms that we refuse to show recruits. A beautiful stadium that today is not sorely pressed to compete with high school stadiums. We want to get into a Power 5 conference. Well, think of the last message we sent to a Power 5 attendee: the SEC. We as an institution lacked the vision and the will to transform our athletics when the alleged invitation was offered. Then we get left behind during the SWC presumably because we were perceived as not willing to step up. What I am saying is that we have so much to address. If we let go of Bailiff without continuing to acknowledge and address that larger scope of issues that have held Rice back for the past 40 years, we will be in the same situation 10 years from now. Bailiff did not hold Rice back over the past 40 years, neither did Hatfield, Graham. Rice held Rice back. Rice has been beating Rice for a long time, well before David lost to Nichols State. The EZF is a step in that direction. Our AD is a step in that direction. And regardless of how poor our competition and conference is, going to bowl games is step in that direction.

My opinion.

All very valid and logical.

But emotionally, I want a new coach and I want him ASAP. Nine years is enough.

I would rather have Rice #9 on the list than not on the list.

I agree, nine years is enough.

(11-05-2015 01:36 AM)FeistyNightBird Wrote:  Sounds about right.
Also below potential openings at: Kansas State, Pitt, Temple, Memphis, Houston, Toledo, Virginia

Our coach isn't leaving.

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

(11-05-2015 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

And not to be overly pessimistic, but we shall see how Temple and Memphis do next year. So far this is one data point which will need to be somewhat maintained for it to matter. Duke has at least shown stability under Cutcliffe.

(11-05-2015 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

I think most people believe that it was an idea that wasn't really fully supported at first, and the results showed. Jones was initially young and poorly supported, not even having a building until it's 10th year or so... and it became 'not so young' and not supported through perhaps the mid 90's? Going from memory here. The University made a real commitment at one point and it went from being literally ranked in the hundreds to being in the top 25 in a relatively short time.

That's far more difficult to do in academics than in education. If you think Alabama is a dynasty, try supplanting Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Sloan et al.

(11-05-2015 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

And not to be overly pessimistic, but we shall see how Temple and Memphis do next year. So far this is one data point which will need to be somewhat maintained for it to matter. Duke has at least shown stability under Cutcliffe.

We have been bowl eligible 5 out of the last 7 years.

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  We have been bowl eligible 5 out of the last 7 years.

After being 'just as bad as us' for a long time.

Temple went 20 years without a winning season from 1989-2008 if I am understanding, and were kicked out of the big east in 2004... much like we were 'kicked out' of the SWC.... only then to rejoin BigEast 2.0 and then 3.0



Please don't take my 'insults' personally, JHG. I'm not trying to insult your history as much as I am trying to use you as a model. Its a compliment, even if I have to point out that you were once as bad as we were.

The conversation around here tends to focus on 'considering where we came from', and thus it is important to note that other schools have come from some pretty dire situations themselves.

Well...okay, I can agree that the EZF will help address some oft-cited and long standing deficiencies. And I look forward to seeing it, and am grateful to Patterson and JK and the BOT for pushing it forward and making it happen. certainly it will benefit the players, and at least help us step up toward par with other schools.

But my question to ya'll here is:

Can you specify what, specifically, the EZF will do for our coach, and our record a) as it is being built (which everyone can now see this year, and THAT is a very good thing) and b) once it is open? And will the EZF itself help us get a signature win or even two or three of them, since we have not been able to get one for a long time without it? IOW, is this the one difference that will change things dramatically, or should we not even expect that from the EZF existing and/or opening?

(11-05-2015 04:45 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 03:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(11-05-2015 09:59 AM)Pan95 Wrote:  I firmly believe that we are the tortoise. Look no further than the years of athletic department dysfunction Owl69 has often referenced. You don't overcome that in a few years.

Jones School did. Duke, Temple and Memphis may have


I don't disagree with the fact that we don't... or with anything else in your post... I just point out the difference between don't and can't.

Did our business school overcome dysfunction or just youth?

And not to be overly pessimistic, but we shall see how Temple and Memphis do next year. So far this is one data point which will need to be somewhat maintained for it to matter. Duke has at least shown stability under Cutcliffe.

We have been bowl eligible 5 out of the last 7 years.

I wasn't talking about you going from bowl eligible to not, but keeping a ranking close to where you are, let's say Top 50, which hasn't happened since 2011 (#46), and didn't happen in the Golden era.

You guys are great this year and deserve all the credit you have, but I don't see anything controversial about suggesting that the momentum need for Temple to be looked to as a school who has elevated their position.

Enough of this binary thinking! Seriously. It's not a question of the EZF either being a panacea or useless. Very tiresome strawman.

(11-05-2015 05:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Well...okay, I can agree that the EZF will help address some oft-cited and long standing deficiencies. And I look forward to seeing it, and am grateful to Patterson and JK and the BOT for pushing it forward and making it happen. certainly it will benefit the players, and at least help us step up toward par with other schools.

But my question to ya'll here is:

Can you specify what, specifically, the EZF will do for our coach, and our record a) as it is being built (which everyone can now see this year, and THAT is a very good thing) and b) once it is open? And will the EZF itself help us get a signature win or even two or three of them, since we have not been able to get one for a long time without it? IOW, is this the one difference that will change things dramatically, or should we not even expect that from the EZF existing and/or opening?

It will help recruiting in the sense that if we get commitments from and additional 2 to 5 of our primary target recruits per year that in the past we would not have received, then that is a good thing. (i.e. recruits not 'turned off' by our dated facilities).

Some of all of those primary targets may pan out. Some probably won't. It's just part of the equation. But we're certainly better off getting more of the recruit's our coaches are targeting than fewer.

Wayne has lost a number of talented prospects to the major league draft. If he were to pick up one or two more a year, no doubt some won't have an impact. The key is in the ones who do.

And more importantly, the key is the aggregate, not looking at individuals within the aggregate.