(Yesterday 10:04 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: (Yesterday 09:47 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: I get that you prefer a different strategy, but I'm still waiting for some explanation of how/why you think that would be successful and repeatable for us. The old 'this school did it' is not enough of an explanation... unless you can tell me precisely what they did and how we can copy that. I want to know how/why players would chose Rice over these other places.
This is precisely my question about the option, and no one has given good answers. But you want me to defend a system that does not exist at Rice, while simply accepting the current system without any need for validation?
I'm literally laughing out loud right now. I can only presume that you define 'good answer' as one you agree with. I've given you answers... numerous times... in great detail... you simply disagree... which is fine, but that doesn't make you right NOR does it suggest that you haven't been given a good answer. A good answer is one that is logical and well thought out, as is mine... Chip (I think we can use his name now) also gave similar answers in great detail, as did RU Owls.
ALL of them involved doing 'something different' on offense that allowed us to recruit 'different' players than our competition. It also regularly involved a scheme that was at least ostensibly built around running clock in an effort to try and 'level the playing field' on defense by keeping our defense fresher. The FAU game (and the Hatfield game which shall not be named) represented games where we did not control the clock on offense, but the offense IN NO WAY was responsible for our loss. You can't blame an 'old, antiquated offensive scheme' for scoring too quickly.... unless you're suggesting that we should have 'slid' after every first down, even if we had open field ahead.
By doing something different, you not only might get a better player for that scheme than you would for 'similar schemes to everyone else', but you ALSO at least marginally reduce the demand for some of your players who perform well... because other coaches still have to wonder if your skills will transfer to their scheme.... because if you uncover a gem like perhaps a Dillard or Clement and they come in and perform exceptionally well... back in the day, you had almost no chance of losing them... today, that chance is WELL over 50%. Guys like that might not go to UH, but there are still numerous high quality academic schools that have better football reputations and deeper pockets than we do. If the offer is a Rice degree, 50k and the Wasabi Bowl after going 8-4 mostly playing on ESPNU and in front of an average of 25k fans.... vs a degree from one of the p5 academic schools or even a large state flagship school, 250k and in a big name bowl after going 8-4 mostly playing on network TC in front of an average of 60k fans.... We're going to lose 98 times out of 100. Hell, I know some guys that would rather ride the bench in front of 100k at DKR, collecting 100-300k/yr and having that experience and degree than be a star in the AAC.
Quote:And you don't believe that a 2-10 or 1-11 season would be a momentum killer, particularly at a time when the university would want the Gateway Project to focus on the football stadium? With attendance down at so many places around the country, patience is no longer a virtue.
I think you completely misunderstand what the gateway project is all about when it comes to the University... but that's another conversation.
The question isn't, will 2-10 or 1-11 be a momentum killer... because we are where we are.... the question is, what do you think coach 'next guy' will do next year vs what you think Abell will do next year. If you think firing Abell will somehow result in numerous wins in these last few games that wouldn't otherwise have happened, I'd like to know how/why. If (as I suggested) our next AD has a coach in mind already who can bring along with him at least an entirely new offensive scheme to turn us on a dime next year, that's also another issue.
I think the most likely result of naming a new coach for next season with a different scheme is that we lose many of our best players and it is difficult if not impossible for the incoming coach to 'bring with him' enough talent to compete immediately.... meaning we not only go 2-10 this year, but we do similarly the next... He'd have to be an absolute WIZARD in the portal and that would require millions more in revenue than we have for that not to be the result. Can it be done? Sure.... but I don't see it happening. Do you? Worse though, you're now killing momentum into the year after THAT... which in my scenario at least would have the excitement of a new coach and scheme... unless you're suggesting that should coach new guy not do measurably better in his first year that he took might be fired... which I don't think you would.
So again... and really for the 100th time.... why do you think Rice would be 'above average' even in our weak conference in recruiting, coaching and retaining players (and coaches) than our peers running similar schemes WITHOUT having substantially more financial resources than those peers? AND if you ARE able to do that... how you would then repeat it when your coach and his best players get hired to a better gig? Please give me a logical, well thought out explanation of why you think that plan has a higher probability of success.
