(11-18-2014 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 10:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:49 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Will somebody please define "getting us to the next level"? Once we, the employment committee, have a working definition, we can make sure it is incorporated into the next football HC contract, whether that contract is with Bailiff or somebody new.

Is it a couple of P5 wins, put way in the third quarter? is it a "signature" win? Two ? Three? Is it acceptance into a P5 conference? Winning that conference? Twice?

Is it competing for the NC? Winning it? Consistently?

While we are at it, we can include measures of preparedness and execution. Deductions for penalties, incomplete passes, and lost yardage. Double them if it happens again.

Sounds a bit draconian, I know, but it address the concerns we have been expressing here. I am OK with putting our requirements in writing.

One measure of preparedness/execution would be fewest penalty yards per game. here are the current NCAA standings in that category:

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/698

I suggest we look in the top 20 to find our next coach. Some of those guys might be hard to hire away and/or pay, but I bet we could get the New Mexico State guy or the UTEP guy. Or maybe not.

when we shop for a new coach, or renew the old one, let's let him know what we expect.

Buddy, I think "getting to the next level" is pretty well defined here. Must we have a circular argument every single time someone says something critical of one of our programs or a coaching staff? Bailiff has taken us from being a laughing stock and amongst the worst 25 teams in the country to a moderate level of respectability. We're a Top 60 - 85 team that can usually beat teams ranked outside the Top 85, but that cannot compete against teams better than us, and certainly not against teams ranked inside the Top 50. That assessment is reality, whether you like the tone or not.

Taking us to the next level would be getting the program to where we are at worst a perennial Top 50 team (though some here think Top 35 is possible)-- a program that almost always beats teams worse than them, and can not only compete for 3 - 4 quarters against Top 25 caliber opponents, but occasionally gets the much-needed signature win. This is what is required to improve the national perception of our program, and to get us considered as a viable P5 candidate for the next round of realignment, which I believe is and should be our ultimate goal. From what I've seen the past 8 years-- which, IMO, is more than enough accumulated evidence and experience, Bailiff simply is not that person.

To clarify, "getting to the next level" is getting the program in a position to be considered a viable and attractive candidate for the next round of P5 alignment...and the reason for the urgency is that the window is closing-- with JK on board it may be now (over next 5 or so years) or never. Getting to that level of respectability may still not be enough to get us the invite, but we have to give it our best shot to at least get in the best position to be considered.

Buddy, I find it interesting that you totally ignored my response/answer above, save to mock it as "objecting to your question". Perhaps I was too specific in my definition of "next level" for you, and you'd prefer more ambiguity? The other responses may not be quite as specific as mine, and might have differed slightly in specific goals, but the gist of the answers were the same.

sorry if you felt ignored. I answered Frizzy before reading all of the responses, then went back and responded to the one I felt most in agreement with.

Walt, I think we are in agreement in large measure, but (get this) you don't go far enough. I don't want an occasional big win - I want all of them. I don't want to be top 50 - I want more and more and more.

The question is this: Is Bailiff getting there? Is he capable of getting us to that point?

Maybe. maybe not. As you say, there has been progress. We have won games, had winning seasons, a championship, some bowls, etc. It has been slower than any of us wanted. But I see no basis for the assumption that he has topped out.


On the other hand, there is always the possibility that some unknown hero will ride in and immediately accelerate the upward progress, maybe get us there (wherever there is) in 3 years or so. I see no basis for that assumption either.

Maybe, maybe not. Now we are back to the bird in the hand/bird in the bush decision. some want what is behind door #3.

See, Buddy, that's we I and others disagree-- we think there is more than enough evidence that Bailiff has topped out, and cannot take us to the next level; even a modestly defined next level. In 8 years, we don't have a single win against a Top 50 (not Top 25, but Top 50) team, and have only competed and kept the game close in 2 of 25 such games. And each year we get a Nichols State or ODU type debacle.

The most recent example was this past weekend against Marshall. Yes, Marshall was a better team and I gave us only 25% - 30% chances of winning at best, but given it was a "must win" for us if we wanted to keep our conference title defense alive, I certainly did not expect an embarrassing blowout, almost from the opening whistle. We simply were not prepared or motivated to compete...and that's on the coaching staff. In his presser yesterday, he one again said we need to be better prepared, and that was on him. How many times must we hear the same thing. And I've never before heard a coach try to explain a loss by saying the players might have been weary from practicing too hard. PLEASE!

If you honestly see "no basis for the assumption that we've topped out" then I honestly do not believe you ever will; regardless to how much evidence mounts up to support the belief.