(11-19-2014 12:18 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 12:04 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Actually, there was some variation in what was acceptable in the definitions. All 3 wanted improvement, but Walt's, for example, stated clearly he wanted Top 50 rankings on a consistent basis (with making Top 25 on a periodic basis). Not dismissing that as a goal, but we've hit that (top 50) twice in 20 years. His goal, I'm guessing, is 17 or 18 out of 20 at worst (someone else defined "consistent" as every year, a la Rice making the NCAA's in baseball).
We'd all be happy with that, but that's a huge leap from where we've been since the early 1960's, and we'd have to do that without the benefit of P5 revenue or facilities.
The other two descriptions were also improvements, but my readings of them were a little bit less strictly defined. (and both would gladly 'settle' for Walt's results, I freely acknowledge).
I think Buddy's point about variations in goals is at least partially fair.

There were some differences in particulars at the margins, but I would contend that any result that achieved any one of the three would probably be a considerable favorite to attain the other two. Maybe the specifics of where we end up are different, but I don't think there's much difference in the direction of travel. Certainly none of them fit the historic mantras of Rice athletics--"losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, "if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

In particular, Walt's perennial top-20, located in the Houston market, would be a lock to move up to P-5.

I agree Walt's goal is lofty. Not sure we were ever there even under Jess. But to tie back to the OP, neither was Florida before Spurrier and Urban. Old SEC joke, until Spurrier came back to Florida Field as coach, "What do the football teams of Notre Dame, Southern California, and Florida have in common?" Answer, "None of them have ever won an SEC championship."

??? I truly suggest you guys reread my posts on the subject. I NEVER said perennial Top 20 or Top 25. What I said was that while some my have that as their aspirations, I don't believe that's realistic for football (and, perhaps, Mens basketball, as well). Rather, I very clearly defined the "next level" at perennial Top 50 - 60 caliber club....that consistently beat teams worse than them....and competed against Top 25 - 35 caliber programs (keeping games close), while copping those much-needed, occassional "signature wins". That's what will improve the national perception of our program, and position us as favorably as possible for the next round of realignment (which is our stated goal).

Which is my point about there being subtle differences.
Owl 69/70/75 misquoted you (perennial Top 20), but I suspect that was a typo on his part.

That's part of the point I was making. Everyone seems the goals as 'the same', when there are differences.My post quoted you accurately (i.e., consistent Top 50, periodic (not perennial) Top 25). I had gone back to look before I typed.


I think perennial Top 50% (Top 63), Periodic Top 40 . . .

is more achievable in the short term than the perennial Top 50, periodic Top 25.

Not criticizing your goal or desire. Just that we're closer to the first set of targets, and we've NEVER been close to the slightly loftier goals, at least since the big money, TV era began.

I think Bailiff can get us to the first set of goals, assuming we continue to recruit at, or better, than our current level.

There may be a coach that can get us to your goals, but I think our odds of hiring him are 1 in a 100, and our odds of keeping him more than 3 years (Todd Graham with a conscience) are even less.

If we move toward the first set of goals, we will begin to perform better against the Top 25. We've already had improvement, going from not being competitive with P5's to winning some of them (Kansas, Purdue), and going from losing to Troy State and beating a MAC team in the bowls, to losing to an SEC team and beating Air Force.

JMO

No, Rick-- you did NOT quote me accurately. Look again. I said perennial Top 50 and occassionally beat a Top 25; NOT "periodic Top 25". Here's the actual original post of mine in response to OO's question...

Quote: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.

...so if you're going to go back to my post to accurately quote me, try being accurate instead of continuing to twist what I actually said.

I, for one, do not believe Top 25 - 35 in football is realistic given our academic requirements and current conference affiliation. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Bailiff can ever get us there. Heck, we have not won a single game against a Top 50 (let alone Top 25) team during the 8-year Bailiff era (out of 25 such games), and have only competed in two of those games. So do tell-- what gives you confidence that Bailiff can suddenly and miraculously get us to the Top 50 level when we haven't even be able to compete against such teams even in our best seasons under Bailiff?

You talk about improvement-- so how to you reconcile that with our recent total embarrassments against Mississippi State, Notre Dame, A&M and Marshall? Terrific that we can now beat P5 teams that are ranked worse than us, but is that really a sign of improvement? Again, I've been the first to admit that Bailiff has turned around the program, and moved us from laughing stock to a modicum of respectability, but the reality is that much of that improved winning is due to being in a watered down conference, and playing only 2 (vs. 3 or 4) body bag games to start the season.