(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

Whoa, its offical. you guys will literally b**ch about anything. Mind boggling.

(12-02-2015 02:22 AM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

Whoa, its offical. you guys will literally b**ch about anything. Mind boggling.

Just repeatedly about the same subject.

And it's because we keep doing the same thing (now going on ten years) and expect a different results somehow.

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

It's a tough line to straddle. One realist view is spot on with yours - our peers are the teams in our conference that, until this past year, we had mostly out competed for three years, sans one or two games a year, putting well above average. The other fallas well in line with the other - we can't view these schools as peers or we will fall so far down the pecking order in the grand scheme of things that our program may eventually fold. The thing is, neither is wrong, and both entirely hinge upon the action of the AD and BOT.

I imagine that if we decided to go and spend a lot more money procuring a new coaching staff, immediately upgrading all of our other facilities, and providing significantly more support for the football team, that the first group of realists would begin to fall in line with the second, since I assume that most of them feel that way because of the current level of support the team has. People are beginning to do that in basketball after we got two "high-profile" coaches in a row and built a brand new stadium for the team - showing that we are intentionally trying to pass our conference peers.

As an aside, while I have used the analogy that compre DB's current situation to a regular enployee's situation, I think Ant is tone deaf in making his comparison above. I feel like it is incredibly obvious that to the players at any school, while winning is of upmost importance, all the young men at these schools go through a significant amount of growth regardless of the outcomes on the field, and the head coach who chose them over other players in the country, obviously has a big hand in that growth. If one cannot understand why someone would become emotional at the end of that journey of growth when talking about their leader, regardless of their current performance record, I think they are far too blinded by their results only view point to understand how human beings work. The emotional speech should have nothing to do with how JK evaluates DB's on the field record, but give me a break if you think that this is ridiculous. These kids are not pencil pushers sitting behind a desk, or finance guys working on big deals, or consultants trying to increase synergy or determine DB's added value to the univeristy, they're kids who just finished putting their health and safety on the line for a man who believed in them.

And don't twist any of why I said into me making an excuse for keeping DB - I'm just making an argument for how tone deaf that first comment was.

RiceLad - no one has had an issue with the speech. It's the expected and now realized reactions that are the problem. From that idiotic Houston press article that basically gives us a head pat saying aww aren't they cute to the expected defense we have come to expect here

If there's any twisting going on its about what I said. Nothing to do with Bob and the speech itself. My comment about an employee ended with "how would that work out for you" asking whether your boss could or would give you a pass.

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference)

I agree that CUSA is our current peer group and he probably ranks in the top half of that group. That peer group includes teams currently ranked by Sagarin (makes it easy because they list conferences, and if you prefer another ranking system that's fine but they are all pretty much the same) 44, 69, 75, 78, 88, 129, 132, 139 (Rice), 155, 163, 164, 182, and 200.

The issue is not where he ranks with respect to our current peers, but whether we want this to be our peer group long-term.

How does he rank with respect to the peer group to which we aspire? Because if we want to get there, then we need someone who ranks highly within THAT peer group.

(12-02-2015 07:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  RiceLad - no one has had an issue with the speech. It's the expected and now realized reactions that are the problem. From that idiotic Houston press article that basically gives us a head pat saying aww aren't they cute to the expected defense we have come to expect here

If there's any twisting going on its about what I said. Nothing to do with Bob and the speech itself. My comment about an employee ended with "how would that work out for you" asking whether your boss could or would give you a pass.

I don't think there is any twisting, I think you just might not see how your comments come off once they are posted.

You ask how ridiculous the situation is, and immediately follow that by describing Bob's speech. No one has any evidence that Bailiff has used this to his advantage, so if you were trying to use the word situation to describe an occurrence similar to that, it was immediately lost, especially since Bob wasn't even talking to JK, he was answering a reporter's question.

In short, it didn't come across as if you were asking why an impassioned speech should affect employment, it came across as if you thought it was ridiculous that the impassioned speech happened and that since it wouldn't happen in a regular work setting, it was ridiculous. I tried to point out that college football isn't a regular work setting, so the comparison was tone deaf.

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

I think it's a great speech and am happy to know that players feel that way.

As far as the university support issue, it seems to me that there are four questions:

1. What can DB accomplish with current levels of support?
2. How much more can DB accomplish with greater levels of support?
3. Can somebody else accomplish more with current levels of support?
4. Can somebody else accomplish more than DB with greater levels of support?

I think the answer to 1 is what you see is what you get.
I think 2 is a critical question. There seems to be a strong feeling among the DB supporters that he could do a lot more with greater institutional support. I am skeptical. I don't see much to his approach but recruit better and hope to God it works, and regardless of support level, we're not going to out-recruit the people we need to beat in order to move up in the world. I suppose the EZF will provide some data points in evaluating this further. I expect the EZF to have every bit as big an effect on us as Ford did on SMU.
Which brings us to 3 and 4. SMU is now on its fourth coach (Cavan, Bennett, Jones, Morris) trying to make the Ford improvements pay off, and they just went 2-10. Finding the right guy is not easy.

What we need is somebody who can make significant progress without the increase in support level, as a basis for building the momentum to get the support increased. Graham preceded Reckling, not vice versa. Tudor did not enable Braun to get it done.

One reason we have had bad hires in the past is that our process has been awful. I do trust JK to make a better decision than a committee. But there are no certainties. I know what kind of guy I'd like to see. I'm not sure what we would get.

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

While it may or may not be true that in football our recruiting classes ranked slightly below the CUSA median, what you're failing to recognize is that a quality head coach and coaching staff can get more out of their players (though game prep, player development, motivation, creative game calling) than their original HS rankings, and can elevate the on-field performance. This is particularly true in football. Bailiff has failed to do this, which is why with one lone exception during his tenure we have only beaten team we out-talent, and have been uncompetitive with virtually everyone else.

And while budget is certainly a key factor, I refuse to believe that we cannot find a better on-field coach that DB , who will get more out of his players, at the current salary budget. There are plenty of up and coming high school coaches and current FBS coordinators who would jump as the salary that Bailiff is currently getting. BTW, DB's salary is well above several CUSA and AAC coaches who have achieved greater success than him.

(12-02-2015 09:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think it's a great speech and am happy to know that players feel that way.

As far as the university support issue, it seems to me that there are four questions:

1. What can DB accomplish with current levels of support?
2. How much more can DB accomplish with greater levels of support?
3. Can somebody else accomplish more with current levels of support?
4. Can somebody else accomplish more than DB with greater levels of support?

I think the answer to 1 is what you see is what you get.
I think 2 is a critical question. There seems to be a strong feeling among the DB supporters that he could do a lot more with greater institutional support. I am skeptical. I don't see much to his approach but recruit better and hope to God it works, and regardless of support level, we're not going to out-recruit the people we need to beat in order to move up in the world. I suppose the EZF will provide some data points in evaluating this further. I expect the EZF to have every bit as big an effect on us as Ford did on SMU.
Which brings us to 3 and 4. SMU is now on its fourth coach (Cavan, Bennett, Jones, Morris) trying to make the Ford improvements pay off, and they just went 2-10. Finding the right guy is not easy.

What we need is somebody who can make significant progress without the increase in support level, as a basis for building the momentum to get the support increased. Graham preceded Reckling, not vice versa. Tudor did not enable Braun top get it done.

One reason we have had bad hires in the past is that our process has been awful. I do trust JK to make a better decision than a committee. But there are no certainties. I know what kind of guy I'd like to see. I'm not sure what we would get.

C'mon, these well thought out and nuanced posts are no fun on the internet!

Back to your questions, I feel that DB could accomplish more with greater university support - more money to hire and retain better assistants to bump his coaching ability (the one assistant we have had that has proven to be good outside of Rice, Herman, oversaw our greatest offense ever in 2008) and better recruiting tools to increase one of his biggest strengths.

However, I don't know how much more he could accomplish, but doubt that it is enough to satisfy our desires over the long-term. I also think that any benefit increased support and facilities would have would not be immediate, and I do not think that we should, at this point, give DB more time to prove that these types of support would help.

We risk going the SMU route (but the jury is still out on Morris), but this year has altered my opinion enough that I believe it is worth the risk to try to go UH's route, knowing that we could very well be SMU instead.

Just read the whole thread

"Went from a feel good story to another brawl about keep/fire Bailiff.
With absolutely nothing new offered or brought out or discussed. Nothing

With the mood on this board as it is right now, someone could post a BLANK thread subject and it would immediately degenerate into the same old same old

(12-02-2015 09:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:44 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Plus how ridiculous does this whole thing come off? Can you imagine if one of your employees got emotional to your boss about how awesome you are despite you being a bottom half employee.

How would that work out for you? And as a follow up, why the double standard?

Similarly, you aare a bottom half employee. But your predecessor who got fired was worse. You justify your mediocrity by pointing to theguy that got fired. How would that work out for you?

Seriously - life has one set of rules. And Rice Football has another.

If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

While it may or may not be true that in football our recruiting classes ranked slightly below the CUSA median, what you're failing to recognize is that a quality head coach and coaching staff can get more out of their players (though game prep, player development, motivation, creative game calling) than their original HS rankings, and can elevate the on-field performance. This is particularly true in football. Bailiff has failed to do this, which is why with one lone exception during his tenure we have only beaten team we out-talent, and have been uncompetitive with virtually everyone else.

And while budget is certainly a key factor, I refuse to believe that we cannot find a better on-field coach that DB , who will get more out of his players, at the current salary budget. There are plenty of up and coming high school coaches and current FBS coordinators who would jump as the salary that Bailiff is currently getting. BTW, DB's salary is well above several CUSA and AAC coaches who have achieved greater success than him.

So let me get this straight, you acknowledge that our recruiting might be below the median and you say our coaches don't coach up. How do you explain the 3 bowl seasons and the CUSA championship?

(12-02-2015 09:51 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 09:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:12 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  If he was bottom half of our current peers (conference) we wouldn't have gone to 3 bowl games in a row and won a conference championship. The problem is you think (and many others) that our peers are SEC and Big 12 schools. They aren't anymore, and won't be unless the university makes the commitment to spend like those schools.

Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

While it may or may not be true that in football our recruiting classes ranked slightly below the CUSA median, what you're failing to recognize is that a quality head coach and coaching staff can get more out of their players (though game prep, player development, motivation, creative game calling) than their original HS rankings, and can elevate the on-field performance. This is particularly true in football. Bailiff has failed to do this, which is why with one lone exception during his tenure we have only beaten team we out-talent, and have been uncompetitive with virtually everyone else.

And while budget is certainly a key factor, I refuse to believe that we cannot find a better on-field coach that DB , who will get more out of his players, at the current salary budget. There are plenty of up and coming high school coaches and current FBS coordinators who would jump as the salary that Bailiff is currently getting. BTW, DB's salary is well above several CUSA and AAC coaches who have achieved greater success than him.

So let me get this straight, you acknowledge that our recruiting might be below the median and you say our coaches don't coach up. How do you explain the 3 bowl seasons and the CUSA championship?

I said "might" be...and I've given my explanation repeatedly-- we've feasted on beating teams ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, with the vast majority in the bottom quintile (including 2 of our 4 OOC games each year).

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  RiceLad - no one has had an issue with the speech. It's the expected and now realized reactions that are the problem. From that idiotic Houston press article that basically gives us a head pat saying aww aren't they cute to the expected defense we have come to expect here

If there's any twisting going on its about what I said. Nothing to do with Bob and the speech itself. My comment about an employee ended with "how would that work out for you" asking whether your boss could or would give you a pass.

I don't think there is any twisting, I think you just might not see how your comments come off once they are posted.

You ask how ridiculous the situation is, and immediately follow that by describing Bob's speech. No one has any evidence that Bailiff has used this to his advantage, so if you were trying to use the word situation to describe an occurrence similar to that, it was immediately lost, especially since Bob wasn't even talking to JK, he was answering a reporter's question.

In short, it didn't come across as if you were asking why an impassioned speech should affect employment, it came across as if you thought it was ridiculous that the impassioned speech happened and that since it wouldn't happen in a regular work setting, it was ridiculous. I tried to point out that college football isn't a regular work setting, so the comparison was tone deaf.

Read the set of posts. It was a response to how I said several days ago that this would become an excuse by the usual suspects and that yes, it has.

I stand by the original non twisted point that as expected, this has become into yet another justification to some people, and that (not the speech) is ridiculous

(12-02-2015 10:05 AM)greyowl72 Wrote:  

It will be dead for good once Bailiff is gone.

(12-02-2015 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 09:51 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 09:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

While it may or may not be true that in football our recruiting classes ranked slightly below the CUSA median, what you're failing to recognize is that a quality head coach and coaching staff can get more out of their players (though game prep, player development, motivation, creative game calling) than their original HS rankings, and can elevate the on-field performance. This is particularly true in football. Bailiff has failed to do this, which is why with one lone exception during his tenure we have only beaten team we out-talent, and have been uncompetitive with virtually everyone else.

And while budget is certainly a key factor, I refuse to believe that we cannot find a better on-field coach that DB , who will get more out of his players, at the current salary budget. There are plenty of up and coming high school coaches and current FBS coordinators who would jump as the salary that Bailiff is currently getting. BTW, DB's salary is well above several CUSA and AAC coaches who have achieved greater success than him.

So let me get this straight, you acknowledge that our recruiting might be below the median and you say our coaches don't coach up. How do you explain the 3 bowl seasons and the CUSA championship?

I said "might" be...and I've given my explanation repeatedly-- we've feasted on beating teams ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, with the vast majority in the bottom quintile (including 2 of our 4 OOC games each year).

That...still doesn't square.

So, if we're...say, approximately at median recruiting, every year, for the last...let's go seven years (to encompass the conference championship team), and we don't coach up, that means that we should be *worse* than the 5-6 teams better than us recruiting-wise (since they have better talent), and also probably worse than a couple teams immediately below us (that get coached up). That would put us at around 8-10 in CUSA every year for the last seven years, possibly worse, which gets four of the seven years.

But there's no real way that we can be below median in conference, not coach our players up, and end up as a top-6 team in the conference for three years (which we did).

I'd also suggest that putting several of those players, who weren't particularly well-regarded coming into Rice, into the NFL indicates some measure of individual-level coaching up. Perhaps we didn't necessarily coach up schematically/execution-wise, but I dare say the position coaches coached our players up skill-wise.

Which then leads to noting some disconnect between individual-level and team-level success--see: how many players did we have drafted from a draft class that went 17-32 over their four non-redshirt years (the 2013 draft after the 2012 season)?

(12-02-2015 10:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 09:51 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 09:43 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 08:36 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 07:49 AM)Antarius Wrote:  Look at our EOY Sagarin ratings. Or Massey. Average them out or heck, take them all

That's like saying if the NY Giants were bottom half of the NFL(which right now they are) they would have no shot at the playoffs. Level of Competition matters a lot. There is an Indian phrase that states 'andho mein kana raja' which basically translates to among the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Forgive me for not being impressed by an all time losing record mainly against Creampuff-USA. That's how low the bar is for a bowl streak now

Apparently that's ok with the university as proven by their $$$ commitment. So, as I said previously unless the university steps up it's up to the boosters who are angry to put their $ where their mouth is. Until we commit to making the SEC schools and big 12 schools our peers (again) then we are just whining about a coach who performs above average with his resources. That's means funding AND recruiting abilities, because let's be serious we never out-recruit the rest of CUSA. Just take a look at the average recruiting class rankings. We take less than everyone else (because our guys stay 4 years) and we usually have ower ranked players with a few exceptions.

As a university we definitely have the resources to be back in the "relevant" scene that has been described on here before but its apparent we haven't even considered making a commitment until very recently. Even now we are still way behind other schools who are trying to make a name for themselves in athletics.

While it may or may not be true that in football our recruiting classes ranked slightly below the CUSA median, what you're failing to recognize is that a quality head coach and coaching staff can get more out of their players (though game prep, player development, motivation, creative game calling) than their original HS rankings, and can elevate the on-field performance. This is particularly true in football. Bailiff has failed to do this, which is why with one lone exception during his tenure we have only beaten team we out-talent, and have been uncompetitive with virtually everyone else.

And while budget is certainly a key factor, I refuse to believe that we cannot find a better on-field coach that DB , who will get more out of his players, at the current salary budget. There are plenty of up and coming high school coaches and current FBS coordinators who would jump as the salary that Bailiff is currently getting. BTW, DB's salary is well above several CUSA and AAC coaches who have achieved greater success than him.

So let me get this straight, you acknowledge that our recruiting might be below the median and you say our coaches don't coach up. How do you explain the 3 bowl seasons and the CUSA championship?

I said "might" be...and I've given my explanation repeatedly-- we've feasted on beating teams ranked in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, with the vast majority in the bottom quintile (including 2 of our 4 OOC games each year).

Well that is our conference... Our recruiting isn't even the best IN THE CONFERENCE, and I don't think it ever has been but we still have won more than half of our CONFERENCE games and even a CONFERENCE championship. So those players must have been "coached up" by your own admission.

Sounds like what you want is a new conference with better opponents who aren't in the "bottom quartile". Then we will probably recruit about average in that conference but compared to where we are now it's a step up. That takes $$$ and vision which the university hasn't comitted to in the last 50 years.