(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.

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Still waiting on that EZF announcement.

I still don't see the EZF as the panacea. There are schools winning without them, and schools losing with them. I understand some specific limitations with ours, and they need to be addressed, but I just don't see it as the cure-all.

I have one question. Has any university built an EZF that isn't just godawful ugly?

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "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.

Define "consistently", and "few", and "roadkill".

That is not defined, unless you want to just define it as "better".

You are right, the definitions vary, and that is why I would like to hear what this "next level" is. I have been assuming it meant a membership in a P5 conference. Have I been aiming too high?

(11-18-2014 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "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.

Define "consistently", and "few", and "roadkill".

That is not defined, unless you want to just define it as "better".

You are right, the definitions vary, and that is why I would like to hear what this "next level" is. I have been assuming it meant a membership in a P5 conference. Have I been aiming too high?

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 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.

Interesting. I get three responses telling me what the next level is with three different definitions of "next level". I also note one objection to the question.

I have been assuming Owl69's definition. I don't know who can get us there, I am not sure if it is even still possible.

Owl69, penalties has been suggested as one measure of preparation and/or execution. I see where on the NCAA listing of fewest penalty yards rice is #33. Alabama #29, less than 1 yard apart in average. This doesn't sound like a one-off to me.

I am tired of the constant refrain of "he can't get us there" when we have no consistent idea of where there is. Let's define it, and write it into the next contract, whether that contract is with Musgrave, leech, Bailiff, whoever. THEN we can start holding feet to the fire.

(11-18-2014 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting. I get three responses telling me what the next level is with three different definitions of "next level". I also note one objection to the question.

I have been assuming Owl69's definition. I don't know who can get us there, I am not sure if it is even still possible.

Owl69, penalties has been suggested as one measure of preparation and/or execution. I see where on the NCAA listing of fewest penalty yards rice is #33. Alabama #29, less than 1 yard apart in average. This doesn't sound like a one-off to me.

I am tired of the constant refrain of "he can't get us there" when we have no consistent idea of where there is. Let's define it, and write it into the next contract, whether that contract is with Musgrave, leech, Bailiff, whoever. THEN we can start holding feet to the fire.

You're playing with semantics here. In reality, all 3 responses to your question gave very similar answers.

(11-18-2014 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "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.

Define "consistently", and "few", and "roadkill".

That is not defined, unless you want to just define it as "better".

You are right, the definitions vary, and that is why I would like to hear what this "next level" is. I have been assuming it meant a membership in a P5 conference. Have I been aiming too high?

You haven't been aiming too high, but P5 membership isn't something that just happens. Rice must do some things to position itself for an invite. In football that means having a competitive program that puts on a good show on television. By consistently I mean what the dictionary says, as in "every year." Every few years does not have to be an exact number. "Roadkill" means not only failing to cover the thread but failing to be an interesting and believable threat to pull off the upset.

Also, according to Kargaard, the window for P5 membership isn't closing, it's closed. He has stated that Rice has no chance of a P5 invite until the next round of realignment destabilizes things enough to prompt invites to programs that normally would not get one, and that might be years from now. He aims to position Rice for the invite when that day comes.

For those who believe it's in Rice's power to get a P5 invite now, Karlgaard is not your man because he does not believe that. But, then again, if you believe that then you are self-deluded to a point beyond which rational argument can reach you.

(11-18-2014 10:21 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "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.

Define "consistently", and "few", and "roadkill".

That is not defined, unless you want to just define it as "better".

You are right, the definitions vary, and that is why I would like to hear what this "next level" is. I have been assuming it meant a membership in a P5 conference. Have I been aiming too high?

You haven't been aiming too high, but P5 membership isn't something that just happens. Rice must do some things to position itself for an invite. In football that means having a competitive program that puts on a good show on television. By consistently I mean what the dictionary says, as in "every year." Every few years does not have to be an exact number. "Roadkill" means not only failing to cover the thread but failing to be an interesting and believable threat to pull off the upset.

Also, according to Kargaard, the window for P5 membership isn't closing, it's closed. He has stated that Rice has no chance of a P5 invite until the next round of realignment destabilizes things enough to prompt invites to programs that normally would not get one, and that might be years from now. He aims to position Rice for the invite when that day comes.

For those who believe it's in Rice's power to get a P5 invite now, Karlgaard is not your man because he does not believe that. But, then again, if you believe that then you are self-deluded to a point beyond which rational argument can reach you.

So basically 'getting us to the next level" just means getting us to the top of G5 so that when/if an opening happens, we are ready and first in line. I can live with that.

The other things are just stepping stones on the way. Milestones, and milestones once achieved, that create further milestones. I am certainly not content with the status quo, I want to continue stepping up the ladder. I guess at this point we have defined the goal as being in position to be the first choice when/if an opening occurs, and things like beating Top 50 teams and getting ranked, etc. are just rungs on that ladder, not goals in themselves. I'm OK with that. Now let's give bailiff a defined goal and a timetable, and let that rule. Time to stop all the petty squabbling about nebulous goals.

(11-18-2014 09:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:43 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Still waiting on that EZF announcement.

I still don't see the EZF as the panacea. There are schools winning without them, and schools losing with them. I understand some specific limitations with ours, and they need to be addressed, but I just don't see it as the cure-all.

I have one question. Has any university built an EZF that isn't just godawful ugly?

To me, the EZF represents a level of financial commintment by community and alumni that is quite modest compared to the funding of capital improvements to P5 and P5-hopeful football programs across the country. Heck, the citizens of Katy just ponied up $58 million for a HS stadium. Nobody is so idealistic as to not believe that competing at the highest levels requires financial commitment, and $30 million really isn't much.

(11-18-2014 04:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(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.

I agree with much of your post here, especially that of expectations and the need to raise them/ keep them high.

The major exception is your advocating Muschamp for Rice. He was a failure at one of the biggest, richest programs in the country- where he basically had a blank check for coaches, recruiting etc., facilities on par with the best in the country, and a built in recruiting draw as the premier state school in the state with the deepest collection of football talent in the country. There is literally nothing in his resume that would indicate he has what it takes to lead Rice to better things. If anything, he seems to me to be just the type of coach who would struggle here. By the way- the comparison to Urban Meyer is laughable.

To answer your question---Kurt Roper is a former Rice football player who is currently Muschamp's OC at Florida. Up until this year he was seen as a hot up-and-coming assistant who would certainly be moving up to a HC job pretty soon. He was David Cutcliff's OC at Ole Miss and then Duke, and oversaw the recent offensive resurgence at Duke. Needless to say, his gamble on Muschamp/Florida didn't pan out.

(11-18-2014 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  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.

Minor disagreement with you on recruiting. We definitely have gotten better talent under Bailiff, but I don't think we have topped out. If we have that is bad news, because we are still lacking in several areas, including DB, OL, and DL (depth), and our team speed overall- especially on defense- is still subpar. I believe his recruiting is a pretty good baseline for my expectations for where the the program should be at a minimum. Where Hatfield had let it slide was embarrassing (with a few gems mixed in at the end admittedly)

I would add that I believe Bailiff is recruiting with one arm tied behind his back though. Our facilities are adequate/ functional- but that is it. They are definitely not a selling point to a recruit like they are at the schools we wish to emulate (TCU, Utah, Boise- even Utah St.). That is the primary area where I think the EZF/ stadium upgrade is important, but I think it is important in that regard. I don't know if we have solved the admissions process- where a prospect has to write a paper of some sort and be approved by someone in admissions before they can be offered- but if we haven't that is an unnecessary hurdle as well. We aren't going to win many battles against Stanford, but the process/ standards shouldn't be any more onerous than theirs. Maybe it's not, but I know at some point that was being said.

(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.

(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.

I can live with either path. What I cannot live with is holding Bailiff to a standard that we will not enforce on others or on his successor. I hear complaints about him saying this or that at a presser. Ok, make the same complaints about hearing the same things at his successor's pressers, and I will hold my peace. Because you will hear those same things. We hear them from every coach every week. We will hear them from whoever is our coach in 2018. Whoever is our coach in 2021, we will have some penalties, some dropped passes, some play calls we don't like. So I don't see much changing with a new coach in the areas we are complaining about.

and if we still aren't in a P5 then, what should we do? Rinse, repeat?

When we hire a new guy, I want our goals codified in his contract. Any problem with that?

(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.

(11-18-2014 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can live with either path. What I cannot live with is holding Bailiff to a standard that we will not enforce on others or on his successor. I hear complaints about him saying this or that at a presser. Ok, make the same complaints about hearing the same things at his successor's pressers, and I will hold my peace.

Been avoiding this for a while, but felt like this is a good time to jump in.

Time in position is a factor here. If the team performs exactly the same under Braun in year 5 as it does with Rhoades in game 2, of course I will unleash a flurry of criticism on the former and be willing to wait on the latter. 6 years in, I promise you any replacement will be subject to exactly the same criticism - even more actually, since most of us like Bailiff, leaving out the on-field product.

My goal for Rice football is to beat someone we shouldn't beat; a team that commands respect. We have not been able to do that yet. I want to see Rice play a game like TCU did against OU, SMU did against TCU a couple years ago, NW did against ND this year.

(11-18-2014 12:13 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I can live with either path. What I cannot live with is holding Bailiff to a standard that we will not enforce on others or on his successor. I hear complaints about him saying this or that at a presser. Ok, make the same complaints about hearing the same things at his successor's pressers, and I will hold my peace.

Been avoiding this for a while, but felt like this is a good time to jump in.

Time in position is a factor here. If the team performs exactly the same under Braun in year 5 as it does with Rhoades in game 2, of course I will unleash a flurry of criticism on the former and be willing to wait on the latter. 6 years in, I promise you any replacement will be subject to exactly the same criticism - even more actually, since most of us like Bailiff, leaving out the on-field product.

My goal for Rice football is to beat someone we shouldn't beat; a team that commands respect. We have not been able to do that yet. I want to see Rice play a game like TCU did against OU, SMU did against TCU a couple years ago, NW did against ND this year.

My goal is to be the team the other team shouldn't beat...and doesn't. I want to be top dog, not Occasional upset mouse.

question remains, how best to get there.

Ant, I think you would be one of the consistent ones. Most here, I think, won't be.

Jeeze, it feels like half our threads devolve or evolve into the same discussion (the Marshall post-game thread and this thread bear a lot of similarities).

This season is still an incomplete. Marshall is very good. A closer loss would have felt less bad, but still wouldn't have felt good. The ODU loss is a big problem, discussed ad nauseum. But the season still boils down the the next 3 (presumably) games.

If Rice beats UTEP and LaTech, I will feel good about what the coaching staff accomplished this season. Not great (because of ODU), but good. Still steady progress.

If Rice wins one of the remaining games to end the regular season at 7-5 I will feel OK about the season. I will feel confident that Rice can maintain its current level, but not really expect that Rice can do what Marshall is currently doing.

If Rice loses both remaining games, that's a problem. But as discussed by others, its a problem that I'm not sure leads to any concrete changes (unless Rice is left out of the bowl picture).

Hard to speculate on how the presumed bowl matchup could affect my feelings. Obviously if the team goes 8-4 and beats a credible bowl opponent, "good" becomes "quite good." If the team goes 6-6 and loses to an unimpressive opponent, "problem" because "barf".

Well, if Rice beats UTEP and La Tech, that's an 8-4 finish with a win over a top-50 program, and of course everyone would be happier.

But that starts with not losing at home to UTEP...

(11-18-2014 02:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  If Rice beats UTEP and LaTech, I will feel good about what the coaching staff accomplished this season. Not great (because of ODU), but good. Still steady progress.

If Rice wins one of the remaining games to end the regular season at 7-5 I will feel OK about the season. I will feel confident that Rice can maintain its current level, but not really expect that Rice can do what Marshall is currently doing.

If Rice loses both remaining games, that's a problem. But as discussed by others, its a problem that I'm not sure leads to any concrete changes (unless Rice is left out of the bowl picture).

Hard to speculate on how the presumed bowl matchup could affect my feelings. Obviously if the team goes 8-4 and beats a credible bowl opponent, "good" becomes "quite good." If the team goes 6-6 and loses to an unimpressive opponent, "problem" because "barf".

Yes.

This is an appeal to all. As Big and others have noted, it looks like every long thread evolves into debates about Bailiff. I find myself ignoring the discussions unless one of the posters goes down what I think is an absurd path.

Having said that, he is not going anywhere. He has a multi-year contract and the apparent confidence of the Administration. Our concerns abut the "next level" are not shared by the powers that be who probably, based on what I hear from fellow alum, consider the current P5 system obscene as opposite to what athletics at higher learning institutions should be.

So, as long as he continues to be competitive in the bottom feeding CUSA, his job is secure. The only way he is going anywhere is if he gets hired away but so far we have not been so lucky.

Under those circumstances, I think I will root for our success, albeit against diminished competition against schools for which we have nothing in common historically or academically. And that is NOT Bailiff's fault. It burns me, as I'm sure it burns all on this Board (pro and con his retention) that we didn't keep up with our former SWC colleagues and that as good as we are academically, we don't excel in any sports, save baseball due to the incredible OG.

So, why not put a moratorium on this argument until at least the end of the season?