(11-17-2014 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:39 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Hope GoodOwl just listened to what JK had to say about Bailiff on the coaches show

What exactly did you expect JK to say in a public forum in front of his head football coach?

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when people get annoyed at Bailiff for saying coach speak type things during half time or post-game pressers.

Yeah, they get all mad at Bailiff for saying we need to cut down mistakes and execute better, then come here to say we need to cut down mistakes and execute better.

We need to beat UTEP. Did Bailiff say anything about that?

What were some of Karlgaard's and Bailiff's specifics?

(11-17-2014 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:39 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Hope GoodOwl just listened to what JK had to say about Bailiff on the coaches show

What exactly did you expect JK to say in a public forum in front of his head football coach?

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when people get annoyed at Bailiff for saying coach speak type things during half time or post-game pressers.

Yeah, they get all mad at Bailiff for saying we need to cut down mistakes and execute better, then come here to say we need to cut down mistakes and execute better.

Bailiff is the only coach I have ever heard call OOC games "preseason games"...and I'm growing tired of his continued refrain (repeated at today's presser) that we've got to be better prepared...to execute better...to cut down on mistakes...and to play 4 quarters....and it's on him...and then we proceed to make the exact same mistakes game after game after game.

(11-17-2014 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:39 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Hope GoodOwl just listened to what JK had to say about Bailiff on the coaches show

What exactly did you expect JK to say in a public forum in front of his head football coach?

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when people get annoyed at Bailiff for saying coach speak type things during half time or post-game pressers.

Yeah, they get all mad at Bailiff for saying we need to cut down mistakes and execute better, then come here to say we need to cut down mistakes and execute better.

LOL +1

Is interesting how some folks are satisfied with six wins and bowl eligibility. These are the same folks that think Northwestern beating ND was not possible or LA Monroe taking T AM down to the wire was a fluke. In the meantime, we got it handed it to us. We have six wins against teams that combined have at best a .300 winning percentage. "The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

(11-17-2014 10:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  We need to beat UTEP. Did Bailiff say anything about that?

What were some of Karlgaard's and Bailiff's specifics?

He said that the team was fatigued against Marshall from overworking them during the week. Seriously he said that. I hope the boys get a day off this week if that's the case.

(11-17-2014 10:54 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'm growing tired of his continued refrain (repeated at today's presser) that we've got to be better prepared...to execute better...to cut down on mistakes...and to play 4 quarters....and it's on him...and then we proceed to make the exact same mistakes game after game after game.

What would you have him say at the presser?

(11-17-2014 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:39 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Hope GoodOwl just listened to what JK had to say about Bailiff on the coaches show

What exactly did you expect JK to say in a public forum in front of his head football coach?

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when people get annoyed at Bailiff for saying coach speak type things during half time or post-game pressers.

Yeah, they get all mad at Bailiff for saying we need to cut down mistakes and execute better, then come here to say we need to cut down mistakes and execute better.

The problem is not that he says those things. The problem is that they 1) agree with him, and 2) see those things as his job to fix.

(11-18-2014 01:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 10:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 09:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-17-2014 08:39 PM)owlatheart Wrote:  Hope GoodOwl just listened to what JK had to say about Bailiff on the coaches show

What exactly did you expect JK to say in a public forum in front of his head football coach?

This is exactly why I find it hilarious when people get annoyed at Bailiff for saying coach speak type things during half time or post-game pressers.

Yeah, they get all mad at Bailiff for saying we need to cut down mistakes and execute better, then come here to say we need to cut down mistakes and execute better.

The problem is not that he says those things. The problem is that they 1) agree with him, and 2) see those things as his job to fix.

So what is the problem with coachspeak?

(11-16-2014 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Muschamp is not the right guy for Rice. Kurt Roper might be, but Muschamp isn't.

Summary: Bailiff and Muschamp bot have plusses and minuses, just in different areas. I prioritize being successful on a national scale a bit more than we have in a long time. Mus has a pedigree I can understand as a fan and that is marketable to players, fans and other coaches. I don't know all his details, but a former head-coach-in-waiting-at Texas can't be dismissed just because he failed at Florida.

Now, for your reading entertainment (all two of you) here are a few more thoughts on posting this thread here when I turned on my computer Sunday morning and read the headline in the news, which should more than make up for my lack of postings this year, so enjoy:

Owl 69/70 I appreciate your opinion. I have read your continued posts this season where you repeatedly speculate Bailiff has his plusses, but overall just doesn't seem like the guy to get us to the next level. If Bailiff had his current performance against the old SWC instead of present day C-USA 3.1 (or whatever version it's in now) I would not be complaining about him (okay, much.)

My opinion is likening Bailiff to the girl you've dated off and on for a few years and just can't seem to pull the trigger on and marry (perhaps some of you older guys can relate and/or you remember). Oh, she's a fun girl and all, and she has her positives, and she talks about how much she digs you and stuff, but in the end you're just so on the fence you can't say "I Do" because you know deep inside she just isn't the right one for you--not that you necessarily have someone better all lined up, but you have some ideas.

I'm not saying Bailiff hasn't done some things for Rice--he has:
+He is a nice guy- most everyone agrees.
+He is very loyal to his staff--there is something to be said for that in certain situations.
+He graduates his players--a necessity for any coach at Rice, no question.
*He can recruit well for Rice (here's where I think a lot of other coaches--not all, but a lot) would be able to use Rices' academic advantages in recruiting against other C-USA and G5 schools almost as well as if not better than Bailiff because it's not as much Bailiff as it is having a Rice degree vs other C-USA degree.
+He is weirdly lucky or charmed, which serves Bailiff better than it serves Rice IMHO--by this I mean, he can be on the brink of being fired and then snatch job security/contract extension by doing just enough to not get fired despite still having a losing overall record after, what almost 8 years. JK gave him the latest reprieve because as a brand-new AD of only a few months, in the process of getting up to speed and evaluating the current situation, how do you fire a guy who won the conference, even if the stars lined up absolutely perfectly for it to happen last year (I don't think it happens more than 5 times out of ten, but I'm glad for our players it did). I don't know any other D-I school Bailiff would still be coaching at but Rice (maybe there are others, but I can't name them). Rice's indecision in waiting too long to rid themselves of coaches who are dead weight is part of the school's long football history, so why change now? This seems to be what we're known for nationally in football more than anything else to the current generation of college football fans.

As for GA Southern, well, son, they were a perennial Champion and top-ranked team in D-IAA before moving up (they have a playoff in FCS, remember, so their wins were no fluke of luck or stars aligning like many of Bailiff's), have a huge tradition of winning and a wildly supportive and growing fan base, and they are currently leading their weak conference. They have a history of playing top level (and I mean D-I ranked) teams close and coming up with the occasional upset (or signature win--something Bailiff lacks) so when they beat Florida, we are not surprised here in Georgia because we know about Georgia Southern. They are like UTSA, but with a history of playing that UTSA does not have--they will move up at least a bit someday soon--probably to C-USA or AAC due to their winning and their fan base and willingness to invest in football as a marketing tool and tradition of excellence for their school.)

As for Rice possibly being interested in a coach who didn't live up to Florida's standards (of Top-10 rankings (Top 25 is just not good enough at Florida, you see) and National Championships in the most competitive, stacked conference in the country), well, Urban Meyer left FL after a mediocre (by Florida standards, which are a bit higher than Rices' most people would say) 4-4 conference season and a minor bowl, and burnout/whatever. But Ohio State has done pretty well giving that last washed up Florida coach a chance, wouldn't you say? Or maybe Ohio State was just "delerious"?

When I look at Muschamp here's what I see:

+He's still young by Head Coaching standards, he's not a sunset guy like Hatfield (who did pretty well for us anyway until the end) or Coker (who also had other "issues" but some on the board(including OptoOwl) liked)
+He has deep roots and connections to the nations premier college football league, which would help in Rice scheduling and recruiting both players and assistants.
+He has definite Texas connections, I mean he was the heir apparent at UTexas before his stint at Florida, come on, someone saw more than a little in his potential.
+He knows D (Florida has said they want a more offensive minded coach next go-around) Maybe he'll be smart and find a better OC next job.
+He played for UGA, which I admit to personally liking due to its tradition and winning history.

What kind of person is he? (Is he a "nice guy" like Bailiff?) I have no idea--some of you probably know a bit more.
Who is Roper? Not real familiar with him either, some of you apparently are.

I never played beyond High School Football myself, unlike some of you, I'm a fan, my career has been in marketing and owning small entrepreneurial and technological businesses. My business concerns are, in order: 1. profit first, 2. growth second, 3. investment in the future third.

I saw the story and decided to post in light of the Marshall loss. I have kept silent for this season as I wanted to give Bailiff a chance to carry momentum from his Conf Championship and see if he could muster a signature win on this years' schedule. Once again he has failed to do so, something Dr. K said was a necessity to our football team becoming a Top 25 team, a stated goal of Dr, K, which I agree with. I kept quite after the Old Dominion fiasco, which should never have been so close in the first place. 8 years in, depth should not be as big an issue as it seems to be for Rice when it comes to beating a virtually brand new team like ODU.

You are free to disagree with my opinions, and laugh and comment snidely as many choose to. My goal is same as Dr. K's--for Rice to be ranked in Top 25 and leave doormat status behind. To raise Rice back up to the nationally respected level in football (and basketball) as its academics are. Top-20 academics. Top25 football, baseball and basketball. Seems reasonable to be consistent across the board, but, hey, that's just me.

Muschamp's a pipe dream anyway if for no other reason than Rice has chosen to be penny smart and pound foolish when it comes to football coaching budgets. Something I most certainly do not agree with in sports or in business. If you're going to play, you've got to pay. Anything else gets the results we have seen. To me they are not satisfactory, but again, that's just me. Could Muschamp come to Rice and fall on his face, sure, to answer OO's inevitable point. But I have a feeling Muschamp would do at least as well as Bailiff and Muschamp has more upside, way more, to me. His pedigree still says he's worth loosening the purse strings and taking a chance, along with more pay for assistants, for.

Go Rice!

PS. If Bailiff stays (a near certainty for the Teflon Coach--which I say to his credit--he's a magician at keeping his job here) I'd like to see him and his staff participate in SEAL training like Rhoades, his staff, the MBB team and Dr. K did in the off-season. Maybe it will help him and the football team some. Seems worth a try.

(11-17-2014 11:50 PM)Lumberjack99 Wrote:  Is interesting how some folks are satisfied with six wins and bowl eligibility. These are the same folks that think Northwestern beating ND was not possible or LA Monroe taking T AM down to the wire was a fluke. In the meantime, we got it handed it to us. We have six wins against teams that combined have at best a .300 winning percentage. "The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

I honestly don't see anyone in this thread saying anything about being satisfied with 6 wins, especially when one of our loses is to ODU. In other threads you will find people saying they expected us to be at this record at this point of the season, but expectations based on evidence does not mean they are satisfied with our record. Some people would just rather take in the evidence and comment on where we are based on that evidence, rather than rehashing the same bel avoided point that we could be better.

(11-17-2014 11:50 PM)Lumberjack99 Wrote:  Is interesting how some folks are satisfied with six wins and bowl eligibility. These are the same folks that think Northwestern beating ND was not possible or LA Monroe taking T AM down to the wire was a fluke. In the meantime, we got it handed it to us. We have six wins against teams that combined have at best a .300 winning percentage. "The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

No one has said they are satisfied with 6 wins.

La-Monroe pressing A&M was a fluke. Play that game 100 times and A&M wins 95 to 99, and wins handily 70 to 85 times. La Monroe deserves to be commended no doubt, but that meets my definition of a fluke.

(11-18-2014 04:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I don't know any other D-I school Bailiff would still be coaching at but Rice (maybe there are others, but I can't name them).

There is none. The empirical reality is that Bailiff has, by a wide margin, the worst won-loss record of any coach with his tenure or longer.

My guess is that reflects some combination of three factors
a. turnover among AD's (three during Bailiff's tenure)
b. fear of replacing him with someone less effective
c. low expectations

(11-18-2014 08:32 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  La-Monroe pressing A&M was a fluke. Play that game 100 times and A&M wins 95 to 99, and wins handily 70 to 85 times. La Monroe deserves to be commended no doubt, but that meets my definition of a fluke.

When do we get our fluke? I mean Bailff has only 3 wins against P-5. Each of those was close (2 decided on last play of game and the third we trailed deep into the 2nd half). those were bad Purdue and Kansas teams that have moved on from those coaches.

In his 19 losses to P5 teams, I don't recall any where the game was still competitive in the 4th quarter, but happy to be reminded if there was one.

19 is not 100, but the sample size is approaching that where a fluke might happen, if indeed ULM were a fluke. But I think it is crazy to call ULM a fluke. They beat Arkansas on the road in 2012.

btw, this is my eternal frustration with Rice basketball. Since conference tourneys became the norm in late 70s and early 80s, dozens of teams with losing records have hit a late Feb hot streak and played their way into the dance. I don't recall Rice ever even making the final of its conference tournament.

(11-17-2014 11:50 PM)Lumberjack99 Wrote:  Is interesting how some folks are satisfied with six wins and bowl eligibility. These are the same folks that think Northwestern beating ND was not possible or LA Monroe taking T AM down to the wire was a fluke. In the meantime, we got it handed it to us. We have six wins against teams that combined have at best a .300 winning percentage. "The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”

Who are the folks that are satisfied with six wins?

(11-18-2014 08:45 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  btw, this is my eternal frustration with Rice basketball. Since conference tourneys became the norm in late 70s and early 80s, dozens of teams with losing records have hit a late Feb hot streak and played their way into the dance. I don't recall Rice ever even making the final of its conference tournament.

I think the turnaround of MBB has begun. May take a couple of years, but I'll be very disappointed if #RiceRising fails going forward. We have a coach who "gets it" and the current team has bought in.

(11-18-2014 08:45 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 04:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  I don't know any other D-I school Bailiff would still be coaching at but Rice (maybe there are others, but I can't name them).

There is none. The empirical reality is that Bailiff has, by a wide margin, the worst won-loss record of any coach with his tenure or longer.

My guess is that reflects some combination of three factors
a. turnover among AD's (three during Bailiff's tenure)
b. fear of replacing him with someone less effective
c. low expectations

I think you mean currently, but it's interesting to note that after 8 seasons, Ken Hatfield was 42-46-1 (.488) versus Bailiff's current (almost 8 season) 46-52 (.469).

So maybe the answer undercutting everything is C? And that's a much deeper institutional problem with no easy answers.

Good Owl,

Interesting and thoughtful analysis.

Right now, I don't think David Bailiff can get Rice football to top-25/P-5 status. Number one, I'm not sure anyone can. Number two, I acknowledge that he has made great strides, but his strides have come almost entirely from upgrading the talent through better recruiting. I just don't think there's much more hay to be baled in that field. Other than Stanford and Notre Dame, who have unique advantages peculiar to themselves, the P-5 private universities pretty much plateau out at recruiting only a short distance above us, and even they have advantages over us since we're not P-5. We've gone about as far as we can getting better players, to move up further we have to do a better job of getting the players we have to play better. We need to maintain the talent level we have now, or slightly better (and only slightly seems to be the maximum realistic possibility), and get that talent to overachieve. I don't see any other realistic way to break out significantly above where we are now, and I don't see that being something that David Bailiff can do.

I'm willing to be proved wrong in that assessment, and as long as Bailiff can maintain at or above the current level, I'm willing to give him more time to get it done. If we go back to 2009-11, I've got a different opinion, but if we don't then we can live with him a while longer. And who knows, he could prove me wrong. There's nobody who's obviously better knocking at our door, and maybe it is an intelligent strategy to hold on and solidify what we have right now before trying to find the person who can lead us to the next level. And if the person is out there, he probably sees it as a lot more possible to achieve in a program that has been winning 8 games a year for a decade than in a program like we've had in the past that's averaging 2 to 4 wins a season (for reference, we won 28 in the decade of the 70s and 22 in the decade of the 80s). I guess what I'm saying is that I could see Bailiff as the leadoff guy in something like a Koetter/Hawkins/Petersen progression, and if that happened we would be well positioned to move up. Houston isn't Boise, particularly when it comes to number of TV sets.

As for Muschamp, he's a very capable DC, but by no means did Florida overachieve during his tenure there. He came from Texas, where underachieving with great talent has been the recent norm. He was the heir apparent because he looked better in that role than Greg Davis, but that's not saying a lot. I don't know that he can't do it, but I do know that he hasn't done it.

What we need is someone who:
1) represents well the values of the university,
2) can maintain recruiting at the current level, or perhaps turn it up another notch or two, and
3) can get that talent to overachieve.

Bailiff is as good as we can reasonably expect with regard to 1 and 2. So far, he hasn't shown the ability to do 3. Muschamp is not a slam dunk with any of them.

It's doable. I think Rhodes has the potential to do it in basketball. I'm not at all convinced that it's a bad strategy to hold what we have in football for now, give Rhodes a shot to turn basketball around, and in so doing solidify the overall athletic program in ways that make the next jump in football an easier one. I don't agree with the fear of the unknown as a reason not to make a coaching change. If we determine conclusively that Bailiff cannot get us where we need to go, then delaying a change simply delays getting us where we need to go, and even if the next guy can't get it done, are we really worse off replacing a guy who can't get us where we need to go with another guy who can't get us where we need to go? What we need to do if we do make a change is to hold the next guy to a higher standard of accountability and be ready to make another change if he proves to be a mistake. We can't have Bailiff's replacement winning 3, 2, 4, and 4 in four of his first five years here.

The days of, "Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," and, 'If you don't know where you're going, the path of least resistance will get you there," need to end. Once they do, decisions about football coaches will be easier.

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.

(11-18-2014 09:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Will somebody please define "getting us to the next level"?

Utah, TCU. The next level above G-5 is P-5, so teams that have made that move would be the target.

I would include Boise, because if Boise were in Houston they would have made that move. They did everything that they could control, but they can't make 5 million people live in Idaho.

As for the comments about execution errors, I'm kind of like Potter Stewart and pornography, I'm not sure I can give you a black-letter definition, but I know it when I see it. Yoke pointing out that Alabama had somebody jump three weeks ago or TCU had to waste a time out two weeks ago as if suggesting some sort of equivalency. I think it's a false equivalency, because it's a noteworthy one-off with them but a commonplace occurrence with us.

"The next level" has been defined. Definitions vary from one poster to the next, but all include a) consistently finishing in the top half of FBS, b) finishing at least in the top 40 every few years, c) being something more than roadkill in games against Top 25 opponents.

Not even the most psychotic posters define "next level" as the national championship, so the goal isn't completely unrealizable.

IMO it will take more than switching out one poorly-paid head coach for another. Still waiting on that EZF announcement.