Not that I want to join this discussion, but I get the impression that many think that just because I don't know what you did yesterday, that I must assume that you did nothing positive.

While I know there is a certain marketing function to the AD's position, I know personally that the athletic department and to a certain extent university officials have been active in seeking alternatives to our current C-USA positions, including personal meetings with officials from Big 12 schools and other non-CUSA schools. I think we can assume that there have been many inventive approaches explored.

As an example, I spoke with an AD from a Big 12 school who confirmed that he speaks with Rice officials on a more or less continuous basis and not only do the discussions include potential Big 12 membership but other opportunities for Rice. I got the impression that there are alternatives available when and if changes in conference alignment occurs.

Another part of the article that really struck me was this:

Quote:Karlgaard said when he accepted the job, his goals were clear.

“When I came to Rice, it was with the assumption that we were going to make a go of it at the [Football Bowl Subdivision] level,” Karlgaard said. “We were going to see if we could really strengthen our programs. We were going to see if we could make our way into a Power 5 conference. We were going to see what kind of brand equity we could realize with our athletics.”

Four years into his tenure, those goals have not changed.

So if this is to be believed, shooting for P5 was explicitly discussed and adopted as a goal as of at least mid-2013. But this goal was never communicated to the Rice community, no momentum behind it was ever sought to be developed. And, WTH is THE PLAN for how this monumental but not impossible task was going to be accomplished? Was there ever a plan, beyond staring at the phone and hoping it would ring someday with Bob Bowlsby on the other end? Was the "plan" that we would just try to win a bunch of who-cares games in this dumpster of a conference and magically get a call up to The Show? Was there instead an actual, professionally detailed and ambitious plan and it got scuttled by anti-athletics forces? Is there a plan today? Or even one on the drawing board?

ETA: I'm glad the phone calls reported by Houston Owl are taking place. But they need to be taking place in the context of concrete action by Rice to prove to very likely skeptical potential future conference partners that we are not going to be the same old Rice. Hence, not surprisingly, none of those conversations have borne fruit to date. As far as I can tell, the plan is to talk our way into a better conference. We are, in fact, still the same old Rice. Forgive me for concluding that JK/Leebron/BOT either don't know the magnitude of the effort that is going to be required, or they do know and have rejected it as unfeasible.

(10-19-2017 09:55 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Another part of the article that really struck me was this:

Quote:Karlgaard said when he accepted the job, his goals were clear.

“When I came to Rice, it was with the assumption that we were going to make a go of it at the [Football Bowl Subdivision] level,” Karlgaard said. “We were going to see if we could really strengthen our programs. We were going to see if we could make our way into a Power 5 conference. We were going to see what kind of brand equity we could realize with our athletics.”

Four years into his tenure, those goals have not changed.

So if this is to be believed, shooting for P5 was explicitly discussed and adopted as a goal as of at least mid-2013. But this goal was never communicated to the Rice community, no momentum behind it was ever sought to be developed. And, WTH is THE PLAN for how this monumental but not impossible task was going to be accomplished? Was there ever a plan, beyond staring at the phone and hoping it would ring someday with Bob Bowlsby on the other end? Was the "plan" that we would just try to win a bunch of who-cares games in this dumpster of a conference and magically get a call up to The Show? Was there instead an actual, professionally detailed and ambitious plan and it got scuttled by anti-athletics forces? Is there a plan today? Or even one on the drawing board?

ETA: I'm glad the phone calls reported by Houston Owl are taking place. But they need to be taking place in the context of concrete action by Rice to prove to very likely skeptical potential future conference partners that we are not going to be the same old Rice. Hence, not surprisingly, none of those conversations have borne fruit to date. As far as I can tell, the plan is to talk our way into a better conference. We are, in fact, still the same old Rice. Forgive me for concluding that JK/Leebron/BOT either don't know the magnitude of the effort that is going to be required, or they do know and have rejected it as unfeasible.

Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now. I’m glad to hear conversations are taking place and I don’t really know what else you would expect. We aren’t going to be the first domino that causes any reallignment. The department seems like it’s run much better than the last several years but I won’t give JK the benefit of the doubt until he makes the decision to fire Bailiff. Other than the way football has been run I think he’s been on top of things. Marketing and ticket sales are light years ahead of where they were previously in my opinion (thanks Shu). Pretty much all of our women’s sports are showing promise (approaching top 25 levels). Basketball looked good last year (and had solid student support) and I think Pera will workout well for us.

(10-19-2017 09:29 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  Not that I want to join this discussion, but I get the impression that many think that just because I don't know what you did yesterday, that I must assume that you did nothing positive.

While I know there is a certain marketing function to the AD's position, I know personally that the athletic department and to a certain extent university officials have been active in seeking alternatives to our current C-USA positions, including personal meetings with officials from Big 12 schools and other non-CUSA schools. I think we can assume that there have been many inventive approaches explored.

As an example, I spoke with an AD from a Big 12 school who confirmed that he speaks with Rice officials on a more or less continuous basis and not only do the discussions include potential Big 12 membership but other opportunities for Rice. I got the impression that there are alternatives available when and if changes in conference alignment occurs.

IF this is true, and IF these conversations have been going on for awhile, then we need to be putting our best foot forward. Which means winning on a regular basis and not regressing to the "same old Rice". JK actually mentions this in the article:

"“I think we have an unbelievably unique and powerful story to tell, but we have to win for people to hear it,” Karlgaard said. “If we constantly retreat to, well, it’s okay if we don’t win, if we’re not successful, because we have real students and we graduate our students and they go on and do great things, all of those things are important, but if you don’t win, nobody pays attention to them.”"

So, if we think we've identified the goal, we've identified what needs to happen to get there, and we are making the calls and contacts that we need to make, then what needs to be done to get there? As I've said previously, DB has done a good job at Rice, and we are indebted to him for the bowls and conference championship, but, at this point, we need a breath of fresh air in the program to generate excitement among the students, alumni and fans at large. If DB leaves (whether by his choice of the university's), this will be JK's biggest hire. And I think he knows it. I think this article - and the soon to be released podcast - was JK laying the groundwork for a change at the head coaching position, and explaining why such a change is necessary. It's almost as if he has to convince people what is at stake and why this needs to happen. I guess we will know at the end of November where we are going with this.

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

(10-19-2017 11:46 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  If DB leaves (whether by his choice of the university's), this will be JK's biggest hire. And I think he knows it. I think this article - and the soon to be released podcast - was JK laying the groundwork for a change at the head coaching position, and explaining why such a change is necessary. It's almost as if he has to convince people what is at stake and why this needs to happen. I guess we will know at the end of November where we are going with this.

I think this is a really solid point/insight.

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

IN the mean time, two old Missouri Valley conference foes go head to head tonight on TV, one a basketball school, the other our cross town rival , who needed us to get into SWC. They have progressed, we are lower than those we used to look down our noses at. Painful

(10-19-2017 09:55 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Another part of the article that really struck me was this:

Quote:Karlgaard said when he accepted the job, his goals were clear.

“When I came to Rice, it was with the assumption that we were going to make a go of it at the [Football Bowl Subdivision] level,” Karlgaard said. “We were going to see if we could really strengthen our programs. We were going to see if we could make our way into a Power 5 conference. We were going to see what kind of brand equity we could realize with our athletics.”

Four years into his tenure, those goals have not changed.

So if this is to be believed, shooting for P5 was explicitly discussed and adopted as a goal as of at least mid-2013. But this goal was never communicated to the Rice community, no momentum behind it was ever sought to be developed. And, WTH is THE PLAN for how this monumental but not impossible task was going to be accomplished? Was there ever a plan, beyond staring at the phone and hoping it would ring someday with Bob Bowlsby on the other end? Was the "plan" that we would just try to win a bunch of who-cares games in this dumpster of a conference and magically get a call up to The Show? Was there instead an actual, professionally detailed and ambitious plan and it got scuttled by anti-athletics forces? Is there a plan today? Or even one on the drawing board?

ETA: I'm glad the phone calls reported by Houston Owl are taking place. But they need to be taking place in the context of concrete action by Rice to prove to very likely skeptical potential future conference partners that we are not going to be the same old Rice. Hence, not surprisingly, none of those conversations have borne fruit to date. As far as I can tell, the plan is to talk our way into a better conference. We are, in fact, still the same old Rice. Forgive me for concluding that JK/Leebron/BOT either don't know the magnitude of the effort that is going to be required, or they do know and have rejected it as unfeasible.

It's hard to put any credibility in his comments re: the P5, given 1) we have done nothing to make ourselves a viable candidate for any future options (nor done anything to mitigate the worsening gap between our program and the P5 programs), 2) have not even made it known as a long term objective of our athletic programs, and 3) and if anything, have talked down the value of the P5, as one of his first messages to supporters when taking over was to describe how the P5 wasn't all that great because we would have to spend more and would still require university support.

(10-19-2017 12:38 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 09:55 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Another part of the article that really struck me was this:

Quote:Karlgaard said when he accepted the job, his goals were clear.

“When I came to Rice, it was with the assumption that we were going to make a go of it at the [Football Bowl Subdivision] level,” Karlgaard said. “We were going to see if we could really strengthen our programs. We were going to see if we could make our way into a Power 5 conference. We were going to see what kind of brand equity we could realize with our athletics.”

Four years into his tenure, those goals have not changed.

So if this is to be believed, shooting for P5 was explicitly discussed and adopted as a goal as of at least mid-2013. But this goal was never communicated to the Rice community, no momentum behind it was ever sought to be developed. And, WTH is THE PLAN for how this monumental but not impossible task was going to be accomplished? Was there ever a plan, beyond staring at the phone and hoping it would ring someday with Bob Bowlsby on the other end? Was the "plan" that we would just try to win a bunch of who-cares games in this dumpster of a conference and magically get a call up to The Show? Was there instead an actual, professionally detailed and ambitious plan and it got scuttled by anti-athletics forces? Is there a plan today? Or even one on the drawing board?

ETA: I'm glad the phone calls reported by Houston Owl are taking place. But they need to be taking place in the context of concrete action by Rice to prove to very likely skeptical potential future conference partners that we are not going to be the same old Rice. Hence, not surprisingly, none of those conversations have borne fruit to date. As far as I can tell, the plan is to talk our way into a better conference. We are, in fact, still the same old Rice. Forgive me for concluding that JK/Leebron/BOT either don't know the magnitude of the effort that is going to be required, or they do know and have rejected it as unfeasible.

It's hard to put any credibility in his comments re: the P5, given 1) we have done nothing to make ourselves a viable candidate for any future options (nor done anything to mitigate the worsening gap between our program and the P5 programs), 2) have not even made it known as a long term objective of our athletic programs, and 3) and if anything, have talked down the value of the P5, as one of his first messages to supporters when taking over was to describe how the P5 wasn't all that great because we would have to spend more and would still require university support.

What was our bid to get into the Big 12 then?

A fluke opportunity that we would have been idiots not to pursue given the circumstance, but hardly indicative of a greater and sustained effort to gain P5 membership.

(10-19-2017 01:28 PM)At Ease Wrote:  A fluke opportunity that we would have been idiots not to pursue given the circumstance, but hardly indicative of a greater and sustained effort to gain P5 membership.

I was gonna say charity by the Big XII.

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

(10-19-2017 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

I think my point of contention is the definition of competing. If our goal is to rack up wins, then yes, C-USA was it. Thats like playing a video game on extra easy mode. If we wanted to grow the program to the point that we aren't down to teams like Army 35-0 at the half, then the AAC would have absolutely been the way to go. That way, the farce that is Bailiff's coaching would have been revealed way earlier, allowing us to take our lumps and be better. AAC or C-USA our OOC record tells us exactly where we stand in the pecking order.

I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC. We would be equally bad, just more apparent to the world how bad that is. Wiping the floor with C-USA still makes you a bad team, and now with the P5-G5 split as wide as it is, makes it completely meaningless.

As for MBB, I am not sure. being a weak sister in the better conference means we still play better teams, we can learn from better teams and get the reflection of exposure that aforementioned better teams get. The only way to be a giant is to go toe to toe with them and eventually beat them. I do not believe that standing on the shoulders of midgets to try to reach the height of giants is a good strategy.

(10-19-2017 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  If our goal is to rack up wins, then yes, C-USA was it.

I think that was the idea

Quote:I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC. We would be equally bad, just more apparent to the world how bad that is.

I think hiding that to create enthusiasm among Rice people and perhaps recruits was the idea

Quote:As for MBB, I am not sure. being a weak sister in the better conference means we still play better teams, we can learn from better teams and get the reflection of exposure that aforementioned better teams get. The only way to be a giant is to go toe to toe with them and eventually beat them. I do not believe that standing on the shoulders of midgets to try to reach the height of giants is a good strategy.

fair enough.... and I agree... but that is an often used strategy

(10-19-2017 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

Sorry, I didn't state explicitly what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that circa fall 2012/spring 2013 that the administration was thinking that we could dominate C-USA and that this thought process was a factor in Rice not moving along to the AAC.

Agree that CUSA is easier to compete in than AAC, I just don't give the administration credit for having that type of foresight, as it relates to hypothetically proactively declining the AAC.

(10-19-2017 12:01 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:46 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  If DB leaves (whether by his choice of the university's), this will be JK's biggest hire. And I think he knows it. I think this article - and the soon to be released podcast - was JK laying the groundwork for a change at the head coaching position, and explaining why such a change is necessary. It's almost as if he has to convince people what is at stake and why this needs to happen. I guess we will know at the end of November where we are going with this.

I think this is a really solid point/insight.

Assuming this point is valid (and it certainly seems like it could be), then the question turns to, who is he laying the groundwork to convince? And that leads to, how do we get rid of that person?

The whole department reeks of agenda. Of powers-that-be making this their little toy project. The best comparison I can think of is Air India. Air India has had some competent leadership in the past but they are routinely overturned by the government ministers who want to run it like their little toy. AI says we want to buy 28 aircraft for expansion, government wants to show off and orders 110. They want to play in the big leagues but let some unqualified elected yahoos make all the decisions.

I'm sure we'll never get to know for sure, but this feels like a measuring contest by the BOT or someone up there. In the words of Auric Goldfinger, "Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'."

(10-19-2017 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

Quote:I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC. We would be equally bad, just more apparent to the world how bad that is.

I think hiding that to create enthusiasm among Rice people and perhaps recruits was the idea

This is a concern. I mean, we pride ourselves on football players who are student-athletes, not just athletes. These guys aren't dumb - and that's why I find it interesting that we would try to pull the wool over their eyes. Thats a general comment, not directed at you or your thoughts.

I think we have seen with our recruiting that they were not fooled. With EZF, Bailiff now holds the distinction of having his recruiting classes plummet from decent to near bottom of FBS.

The same applies to Rice students and fans.

(10-19-2017 02:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  I don't know why we would be worse in the AAC.

I don't think we'd be MUCH worse than 1-11 anywhere.

(10-19-2017 03:35 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 02:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 12:09 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 11:59 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-19-2017 10:57 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Well if we weren’t getting into the AAC with UH then I’m not sure what anyone expected to happen between 2013 and now.

Not really detracting from what you've said... but it is entirely possible that the administration felt that dominating a watered down CUSA (not only in football) would be better than being in the middle of the pack of the somewhat stronger AAC, especially in Basketball. It is possible that there is where our real focus was at the time and we felt that greater strides could be made from here than there. There STILL may be some merit to that argument... IDK.

Disagree. The AAC teams left after the 2012 football season (some after 2013 season, but I believe those stragglers already knew they were leaving prior to the 2013-14 school year starting). Through 2012, we had gone to two bowls in the David Bailiff era, with no evidence to suggest we would win a conference championship the following season, much less dominate C-USA.

What are you disagreeing with?

We certainly stood a better chance of competing in watered down CUSA as opposed to newly strengthened AAC and still do... as bad as we are, we'd be worse in the AAC... but my real point had to do with strengthening basketball and not football.

I suspect they thought they'd perform better in CUSA basketball and thus improve our profile there as a jump-start rather than try and build as the weak sister in a stronger conference.

Maybe I'm not being clear

Sorry, I didn't state explicitly what I was disagreeing with. I disagree that circa fall 2012/spring 2013 that the administration was thinking that we could dominate C-USA and that this thought process was a factor in Rice not moving along to the AAC.

Agree that CUSA is easier to compete in than AAC, I just don't give the administration credit for having that type of foresight, as it relates to hypothetically proactively declining the AAC.

I think the whole conference non-change was a money grab - not having to pay an exit fee, and receiving Rice's split of the other team's exit fees. They probably also thought that CUSA wasn't going to get more worse quality-wise.

The whole way the department seems to run is on a cash flow-focused benefit analysis. That's how you wind up with coaches past their expiration date, because paying the buyout fees cannot be done without scraping from other programs.