It's a good decision. He's building a solid program and last year's squad was one of the youngest in FBS. I've never seen a Rice team that will be as deep and as talented as the one that we'll have next year. Rice will be in it's second consecutive bowl game and Bailiff is a tremendous representative of the university.

It is what it is.

I wouldn't have preferred three, but it's a market-based negotiation, and it's not the most unfair contract I've ever seen. The one thing it does do is eliminate the problem alluded to above, that we have a great year in 2013 and have to negotiate with him when he is in a position of relative strength.

My optimum outcome is that he gets us into the BCS Championship Game this year, and if he gets hired away at that point so be it. Not because I want him to leave nearly as much as I want to get to the BCS Championship Game, no matter how remote a possibility that is in reality. And quite frankly, if we got to the BCS Championship Game, or even a BCS bowl game of any sort, it wouldn't be hard to find a number of very capable people who would line up to apply.

I guess that's what I see as troubling. We got Bailiff over Larry Coker. Neither is a particularly inspiring choice. We simply didn't attract much attention from really top-notch coaches, so we had to figure out who had the fewest flaws. We have some work to do to build the program back up to the level where we can attract somebody with a strong resume. If we get to that point, the chances of landing another Jerry Berndt--or needing another Todd Graham--will be remote, and coaching changes won't be so traumatic.

Overall, I agree with the three year extension. Baliff is a gentleman; a great representative for Rice; and his recruiting seems to improve each year to the extent it is the best in decades at Rice. On the field results certainly must improve, but hopefully the last half of 2012 is a harbinger of good days ahead. The Owls were more than impressive in the second half of the bowl game. One key will be the ability to retain good assistants. Also, I am encouraged that the combination of better athletes and better coaching is resulting in a defense worthy of the name.

(03-22-2013 11:32 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 11:22 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 10:22 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:39 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 07:47 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  Yeah, hard to believe he would accept the one year rollover plan though.

Fortunately, we are locked in for one less season than that last extension provided plus existing contract.

I guess we will see what happens.

Bailiff was in no position to reject whatever Rice offered him. What was his leverage? His record is not good. A one year rollover would have been generous. No other D1 coach has lost as much as Bailiff and yet is still retained. No one was seeking to hire Bailiff away.

Against next year's weak schedule, anything less than 8-4 will be disappointing, but I bet some will be happy with 7-5. 7-5 against the dregs of D1 would only show how stagnant the program is under Bailiff.

Sums it up perfectly. If someone really wanted Bailiff after 7-5 against Creampuff-USA, then let him walk.

I hope that this doesn't turn into the cluster f*@# that Ben Braun's contract has turned into.

Yup, that would go well. So, we let him play it out. A difficult job to recruit becomes even more difficult because he can't guarantee he will be there when the kids get there. So, we lose a pretty big senior class after the 2013 season on top of not getting much talent in for the incoming freshman class of the following season.

Either way, whether he does well and goes to a different job or bombs out, Bailiff is gone because why would you hang around a place that doesn't believe in you. Now a new coach is stuck with a thinner roster from that lack of a recruiting class, which will have an impact at some point, if not the first year then probably by the 2nd year. From there, we will have to try to find a way to replace the depth lost, which will take several years and lead to griping around here as expectations aren't met.

So, yeah, letting him play out his contract is a great idea.

I didn't say that we should let him play it out. Look back at any previous post and the last thing I am advocating is a lame duck coach. I was agreeing with BAO about Rice having leverage and offering him a 1 year extension. Lame-duck situation avoided, yet we can cut ties with DB for cheap next year if we perform poorly.

This is similar to 2008. One good season and a long extension is signed. Unlike 2008, we have this history of 2009, 2010 and 2011 which means that people aren't queuing up to poach Bailiff.

I am willing to say I misread it a bit. I read it as because he felt that a one year extension was generous, he wouldn't have extended him at all and left it alone. I can see what you are saying now.

BUT, if he doesn't accept a one year extension because he has more leverage not to do so if he believes we will have the fantastic season we should with the kids coming back, then what do you do? And, even if he does accept it and we have a great year (which we all believe is possible), now how do you negotiate? He would be in a stronger position than now. Granted, this is off the assumption we have a great year. You are assuming worse results than I am; I am assuming the best because I believe we have the pieces in place.

I was in the 2 year extension camp. I didn't want to have to deal with this situation again, especially when we were set up for a great year. And, I wanted to see what happened in 2014, which would tell me what I needed to know about the future. I understand why it went to 3 years, but it wasn't my first choice of length.

(03-22-2013 11:37 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  And Greenspan has got to go. What progress has Rice Athletics made - athletically,facilities-wise - since he replaced CDC? None. And if that is a true metric of success at Rice, then it would justify his not being renewed.

My hope is that we are focused on an Athletic Director search. Just let the basketball fiasco die away, for now, by letting Greenspan's contract expire. Let the next Athletic Director focus first on Braun and the basketball program based on the 2013-2014 results. Bailiff rocks along with what we all expect will be a darn good season.

The strategic downside would be if Bailiff's team plays competitively against A&M, and runs off 10 wins including the C-USA championship. I think that would create other programs looking to hire him away, which is not such a bad problem.

(03-22-2013 12:44 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  My hope is that we are focused on an Athletic Director search. Just let the basketball fiasco die away, for now, by letting Greenspan's contract expire.

If you know the coach/AD isn't the guy, why delay the firing?

Rice athletics: we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy

(03-22-2013 12:15 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 11:32 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 11:22 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 10:22 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:39 PM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  Bailiff was in no position to reject whatever Rice offered him. What was his leverage? His record is not good. A one year rollover would have been generous. No other D1 coach has lost as much as Bailiff and yet is still retained. No one was seeking to hire Bailiff away.

Against next year's weak schedule, anything less than 8-4 will be disappointing, but I bet some will be happy with 7-5. 7-5 against the dregs of D1 would only show how stagnant the program is under Bailiff.

Sums it up perfectly. If someone really wanted Bailiff after 7-5 against Creampuff-USA, then let him walk.

I hope that this doesn't turn into the cluster f*@# that Ben Braun's contract has turned into.

Yup, that would go well. So, we let him play it out. A difficult job to recruit becomes even more difficult because he can't guarantee he will be there when the kids get there. So, we lose a pretty big senior class after the 2013 season on top of not getting much talent in for the incoming freshman class of the following season.

Either way, whether he does well and goes to a different job or bombs out, Bailiff is gone because why would you hang around a place that doesn't believe in you. Now a new coach is stuck with a thinner roster from that lack of a recruiting class, which will have an impact at some point, if not the first year then probably by the 2nd year. From there, we will have to try to find a way to replace the depth lost, which will take several years and lead to griping around here as expectations aren't met.

So, yeah, letting him play out his contract is a great idea.

I didn't say that we should let him play it out. Look back at any previous post and the last thing I am advocating is a lame duck coach. I was agreeing with BAO about Rice having leverage and offering him a 1 year extension. Lame-duck situation avoided, yet we can cut ties with DB for cheap next year if we perform poorly.

This is similar to 2008. One good season and a long extension is signed. Unlike 2008, we have this history of 2009, 2010 and 2011 which means that people aren't queuing up to poach Bailiff.

I am willing to say I misread it a bit. I read it as because he felt that a one year extension was generous, he wouldn't have extended him at all and left it alone. I can see what you are saying now.

BUT, if he doesn't accept a one year extension because he has more leverage not to do so if he believes we will have the fantastic season we should with the kids coming back, then what do you do? And, even if he does accept it and we have a great year (which we all believe is possible), now how do you negotiate? He would be in a stronger position than now. Granted, this is off the assumption we have a great year. You are assuming worse results than I am; I am assuming the best because I believe we have the pieces in place.

I was in the 2 year extension camp. I didn't want to have to deal with this situation again, especially when we were set up for a great year. And, I wanted to see what happened in 2014, which would tell me what I needed to know about the future. I understand why it went to 3 years, but it wasn't my first choice of length.

You make a good point about 2 years - 2 years protects Rice in both ways; if we do great, then we can extend him again if needed, with 2 years remaining. If we do poorly, we have a 1-2 year buyout.

While Bailiff may have had some leverage in terms of who he has recruited and being poised for doing well, Rice should have had the upper hand. It seems unlikely that if Rice had offered 1 or 2 years that he would say no and walk away. This is assuming that there was not another school pursuing Bailiff.

We have the consistency at coaching, the recruits and a good schedule. We have the pieces in place and hopefully that leads to some big wins.

Seems ok to me. Gives an opportunity to achieve in 2013 and see how 2014 goes, and maybe 2015 if the previous year is hard to figure. If Rice can't afford or refuses to buy out one or two years of a contract paying middle-of-the-pack CUSA salary, we're playing the wrong game, in the wrong place.

This extension was just bad deal-making. This extension was not a "market-based negotiation". Where were the competing bids?? Bailiff isn't even sought after as a DC for a top program, as his Rice defenses over the years have destroyed any reputation he may have earned as a DC at TCU.

The best case scenario is that Bailiff has a great year this season with double-digit wins due to a light schedule and strong depth, but could that be sustained past 2013? That might generate some attention from other programs seeking to hire Bailiff, but I still don't think a P5 program would go after Bailiff without more sustained winning. Any program would have to look hard at the 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons. More likely, a program interested in Bailiff at that point would be a program like Tulane or some other non-P5 program desperate for stability. That non-P5 program is unlikely to have strong bidding power, so Rice could likely match any offer if necessary. Rice could have afforded to wait to see if Bailiff can actually accomplish success this season.

Bailiff's always talking about how he's building something at Rice, but he's already had six seasons! Other programs are unlikely going to be impressed by his pace of getting things done. If Rice hadn't offered any extension, Bailiff may feel miffed and seek the first decent offer to come along, but Bailiff's own slow track record of achievement suggests that staying at Rice is the best course for him. Bailiff is clearly not a fast turn-around artist, so rebuilding a program from scratch would be a step-back and a long slog for him.

The worst case scenario is Bailiff having a losing season this year. Then Rice is stuck with a true failure as coach with a hefty buyout. Rice may have to fire Bailiff out of necessity to sustain any interest in the program, but it will be vastly more expensive than if no extension had been offered.

Given Bailiff's record, the most probable scenario is that Rice goes 7-5 this season, which will be a real disappointment given the light schedule and strong depth. Bailiff remains at Rice indefinitely, as Rice rewards mediocrity. The program stagnates.

BTW, I don't think long-term extensions are necessary for recruiting purposes. Most recruits come to Rice for what Rice offers, which is better than pretty much any other non-P5 program. I don't think Bailiff has any special skills in recruiting. He's better than Hatfield, because Hatfield didn't make recruiting a priority at Rice. Graham and Goldsmith were better recruiters than Bailiff.

Based on how the baseball season plays out, football might end up being our most successful men's team this school year. I don't think it's a bad decision. I know we'll lose a lot after this year but I think Bailiff and the rest of the coaches are putting together a very solid foundation for future years to come.

I respect Coach Bailiff a lot. He's had to deal with a lot of adversity and seems to be doing amazing considering what he's having to deal with outside of the football field.

I would have preferred a shorter extension, but here's how I see it. He was already under contract through 2013, so 3 years takes us to 2016. With a lot of talent returning and a cream puff schedule after week 1, we should do well in 2013. Even if Bailiff is useless, Thurman and Reagan should be able to lead us to 7-8 regular season wins in 2013. The whole key to me is what happens in 2014. If it looks like 2007 or 2009, then we have a major problem. Bailiff gets 2015 to try to recover, and if he doesn't then it's a one-year buyout. I would have preferred a shorter term, but we can work with this. I would also go longer term and even more money with cheaper buyouts both ways. I have never found people that wanted to be somewhere else to be effective performers. When a guy is ready to go, let him. Two years (2013 and 2014) with a university option for a third (2015), and roll it over with a successful 2013, with cheap buyouts both ways, would have been an okay structure. Depending on the buyout provision, that's not far from what we have.

Two plus an option doesn't seem to be a bad place to be with any coaching contract. If there is any recruiting impact, that should be enough to satisfy it. But I would doubt that matters to many kids, particularly the ones we recruit, and I wouldn't expect it to be high on the list for those who do care. If we lose the kids who choose based on the length of the coach's contract, and in return we have more ability to hold a coach's feet to the fire and more flexibility to get rid of guys who aren't getting it done, I'd say we come out ahead on that exchange. Until we get to a P5 league, we're going to lose the ones who do get it done pretty quickly anyway, and that seems a cheap price to pay for the level of success that will get them hired away.

Suppose he goes 10-2 in 2013, maybe wins 11 or 12 with championship game and bowl--after all, his teams are always stronger at the end of the year. It's questionable whether the whole body of work would justify an offer from elsewhere, but in that scenario somebody would probably look at double-digit wins and two bowl wins in a row and take a chance. If we wanted to keep him, we would be in something of a bidding war, and he's probably cheaper now. Kind of like an MLB team locking up a player long term during his arbitration years.

His "progress" has been way too slow to satisfy me, but maybe it is real progress. His upside to me would seem to be a Ron Zook type--good guy, recruits well, teams always seem to underachieve. I could see a string of 7-5 seasons. We could do worse--and have, with remarkable consistency for 40+ years. But that won't get us out of CUSA--at least, not until it falls apart and leaves us to Sunbelt.

I'd love to see him go 13-1 and get hired away--not because I want him gone as much as I want 13-1, and I'm pretty sure that in our situation 13-1 might get him hired away. A string of double digit win seasons in a row would almost certainly get him hired away pretty quickly, and that's a price I would gladly pay to get those wins. If somebody made him an offer, I would be far more inclined to wish him well than to try to meet it.

(03-23-2013 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A string of double digit win seasons in a row would almost certainly get him hired away pretty quickly, and that's a price I would gladly pay to get those wins. If somebody made him an offer, I would be far more inclined to wish him well than to try to meet it.

Understand your reasoning behind your entire post, with the exception of the last sentence. I tend to agree with Fort Bend Owl's post right before yours.

I knew our string of wins at the end of last year was possible, and deep down was hoping for it to happen. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised that it did. I think if we were to string together double digit wins, and an offer came in, IF we had the capacity to match it or even exceed it, we should probably think hard about doing so.

If he recruits well and the players believe in him, I would be very hesitant to assume that a new coach would be expected to maintain where we are (again, talking about back to back seasons).

At the point you described, we would have been to 4 bowls in 8 years, and three double-digit win seasons. Past history suggests that isn't something to take lightly.

Obviously we don't have either of those back to back seasons yet. So that argument is way premature. But I wanted to address it since you mentioned it.

(03-22-2013 12:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Last year how many games did we come out totally unprepared and outclassed by the end of the first quarter?

Made me think, what would be evidence of this.

I don't know what constitutes quantifiable proof of of being outclassed by the end of the first quarter, but I thought scoring margin might give an insight.

I think that reality is a bit less favorable than your post implies. IIRC, we fell down by 16 or more to both UCLA and UH before we crossed midfield on an offensive possession. The fact that we rallied for a late 1st qtr TD against UCLA doesn't really pretty up the effort, IHMO. Our defense was much better early against UH than UCLA, but our offense never showed up in that game.

(03-22-2013 11:37 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  I just hope we didn't go all in based on how last year ended up. We started 1-5 and were one loss away from being completed eliminated from postseason eligibility.

Yes, easy to forget it took a 4th down conversion and a 54 yard field goal to beat Kansas. Otherwise we would have started 0-6.

(03-24-2013 05:03 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 11:37 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  I just hope we didn't go all in based on how last year ended up. We started 1-5 and were one loss away from being completed eliminated from postseason eligibility.

Yes, easy to forget it took a 4th down conversion and a 54 yard field goal to beat Kansas. Otherwise we would have started 0-6.

Yup, and the boys made the plays to get it done.

(03-24-2013 04:52 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(03-22-2013 12:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 10:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Last year how many games did we come out totally unprepared and outclassed by the end of the first quarter?

Made me think, what would be evidence of this.

I don't know what constitutes quantifiable proof of of being outclassed by the end of the first quarter, but I thought scoring margin might give an insight.

I think that reality is a bit less favorable than your post implies. IIRC, we fell down by 16 or more to both UCLA and UH before we crossed midfield on an offensive possession. The fact that we rallied for a late 1st qtr TD against UCLA doesn't really pretty up the effort, IHMO. Our defense was much better early against UH than UCLA, but our offense never showed up in that game.

Yeah, but WMD Owl said the END of the first quarter. Would it have been better if we had run out to a 10-0 lead against UCLA then given up up 19 including a late 1st qtr TD? would the late first quarter TD then have no significance?

IMO, the worst effort of the year was one in which we were leading at the end of the first - memphis.

Personally, I think we should have led every game at the end of the first quarter by ten or more. We failed 13 times.

But I did find it encouraging that after all those poor starts we did manage to pull a few out of the fire.

Bottom line to me is, well, the bottom line. The final score. Intermediate score may indicate something, but the sports world is based on final scores.

Still said nothing about the extension.

(03-23-2013 03:09 AM)Bay Area Owl Wrote:  BTW, I don't think long-term extensions are necessary for recruiting purposes.

This almost certainly has to be correct. My analysis of non-BCS coaching jobs is that it is almost a perfect bi-modal distribution--coaches either get fired or get hired away by BCS schools.

Any recruit paying attention will see that the odds are that the coach who recruits him won't be there for his senior day. The absence or presence of an extension doesn't change this reality.

Only 15 of 52 non-BCS coaches recruited in 2009 at the same school where they will coach in 2013.

(03-24-2013 03:31 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-23-2013 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A string of double digit win seasons in a row would almost certainly get him hired away pretty quickly, and that's a price I would gladly pay to get those wins. If somebody made him an offer, I would be far more inclined to wish him well than to try to meet it.

Understand your reasoning behind your entire post, with the exception of the last sentence. I tend to agree with Fort Bend Owl's post right before yours.
I knew our string of wins at the end of last year was possible, and deep down was hoping for it to happen. To be honest, I was pleasantly surprised that it did. I think if we were to string together double digit wins, and an offer came in, IF we had the capacity to match it or even exceed it, we should probably think hard about doing so.
If he recruits well and the players believe in him, I would be very hesitant to assume that a new coach would be expected to maintain where we are (again, talking about back to back seasons).
At the point you described, we would have been to 4 bowls in 8 years, and three double-digit win seasons. Past history suggests that isn't something to take lightly.
Obviously we don't have either of those back to back seasons yet. So that argument is way premature. But I wanted to address it since you mentioned it.

My last comment is not based on any of the above, nor is it necessarily counter to anything FBO posted.

I've never been a believer in matching offers. When I was in business, if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, I wished them well. My experience has been that if someone got an offer and wanted to leave, both sides were better off parting company amicably. If someone gets far enough in the process to want to leave, it's probably best that they leave.

I am aware of two situations where coaches at Rice received offers from outside and persuaded to stay. In both cases, I think they were less effective coaches afterwards and their loss of effectiveness was related in at least some way to post-decision regret. I'm also aware of one case where the offer was not met and the coach was allowed to leave, although perhaps not amicably. I think we were better off with him gone.

I'm just not a fan of getting into a bidding war to keep people who have decided to leave. If I were in this business, I would tend to do coaching contracts with low buyouts both ways. If he/she is tired of us, let him/her go. If we are tired of him/her, let us get rid of him/her.

(03-23-2013 07:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  and I'm pretty sure that in our situation 13-1 might get him hired away. A string of double digit win seasons in a row would almost certainly get him hired away pretty quickly, and that's a price I would gladly pay to get those wins. If somebody made him an offer, I would be far more inclined to wish him well than to try to meet it.

I hope we get to find out. I'm not sure if one 13-1 will get him hired away.

Here are the guys who got "hired away" after last season. (record in 2012 for coaches with losing records)
Steve Addazio, Temple to BC, 13-11
Dave Doeren, NIU to NC State, 23-4
Willie Taggert, WKU to So Fla, 16-20 (7-5)
Darrell Hazel, Kent St to Purdue, 16-10
Gary Andersen, Utah St to Wisconsin, 26-24
Sonny Dykes, La Tech to Cal, 22-15
Mike Macintyre, SJSU to Colorado, 16-21 (10-2)
Gus Malzahn, Ark Stat to Auburn, 9-3
Butch Jones, Cincy to Tennessee, 23-14

I'll go so far as to say that no coach with 44 losses over 6 seasons has ever been hired away in the entire history of college football.

As you have pointed out, Frank Beamer lost 40 in his first six seasons, basically an equally bad record with shorter seasons. He never got hired away, but has stayed for 27 years.

(03-24-2013 05:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Would it have been better if we had run out to a 10-0 lead against UCLA then given up up 19 including a late 1st qtr TD?

On the question of preparation as evidenced by play in the first quarter, yes starting with a 10-0 lead is to be preferred.

That is actually the complementary evidence to our high frequency of slow starts. Go back and count how many 14-0 leads we have built in the last six years--I'll bet it's darned few