(11-05-2015 06:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: (11-05-2015 06:21 PM)Antarius Wrote: (11-05-2015 06:18 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: I'm hoping EZF facility makes a difference in 2 to 5 recruits a year (as opposed to what we would've done without it). Even if a few don't pan out, how can we NOT be better off?
We can NOT be better off if we allow Bailiff to sit around till 2020 to allow him time with the EZF. By then, we may be in the Sunbelt for good.
I do not object to the EZF; I am glad it is being built. I object to the EZF being used or even considered as a reason to keep Bailiff around, because the EZF won't help make Rice a top program with Bailiff at the helm. 9 years has shown that our problem is preparation and execution and not a giant lack of talent.
That's where I agree that Antarius is likely more in the right as to his thinking on this.
What the heck do you mean by that? Good grief.
Where did I mention any specific Coach in my response to your question in this thread?
You asked a question about the EZF and to what level it would help a coach and how?
What in my response was 'less right' than anything else posted in this thread?
What was 'wrong' in what I posted?
Is the point that every post you and Antarius put out has to be about why you believe there is absolutely no reason we should keep Bailiff as coach one more second?
All I can gather was that the purpose of your question wasn't to get an answer to the question, but to get to a specific assessment of how it pertains to Bailiff.
Again, look at my response, which was only directed to the question, and did not address Bailiff. How is what I posted 'less right' or 'more wrong'?
But since this goes back to your agenda, I disagree with your assessment, because I disagree with the theory that Bailiff has never changed or that we make the same mistakes every game, or any of the other absolutes you're basing your statement on.
I believe we beat the teams that we're better than. I believe that the subset of teams that we're better than changes from year to year (just like it did for Hatfield, Neely and any other coach we have for more than a smattering of games.), based on which players are on our roster, their growth/improvement and their experience, and further, that the subset can change game to game, depending on injuries, suspensions, and other factors (yes, that's for both teams, it seldom is 100% equal in either direction).
And given that I think the players play a big role in who wins and loses, I do think anything that improves recruiting can result in real improvement in our team.
Not sure what's 'less right' about any of that.