(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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?

I like how you conveniently got the last word before the moratorium.

If this statement is true- "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"- then what's the point??

For 80 of the institution's 100 years we competed at the highest level in football. That's where I would like us to be again. Staying where we are is not really an option beyond the very short term. We are either moving up (and granted the odds are against us) or we are moving down. The current system cannot stand for long. If the above statement is true, then why are we 'wasting' $10+ million annually?

(11-18-2014 04:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  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.

I regret my "delusional" comment, as it's not very respectful. But, I was essentially saying the same thing as you're saying above. I don't see Rice making a change after three successive seasons with a bowl eligible team, much less going after Muschamp in the process.

My comments were not really a judgement on the merits of your arguments above. Moreso on the likelihood.

(11-18-2014 04:12 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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?

I like how you conveniently got the last word before the moratorium.

If this statement is true- "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"- then what's the point??

For 80 of the institution's 100 years we competed at the highest level in football. That's where I would like us to be again. Staying where we are is not really an option beyond the very short term. We are either moving up (and granted the odds are against us) or we are moving down. The current system cannot stand for long. If the above statement is true, then why are we 'wasting' $10+ million annually?

All good points. I was seeking a pause in the fire Bailiff vs. keep him discussion. The overall University commitment to Div. 1 athletics should continue to be discussed. As far as the annual $10 million loss, that appears to be the accepted cost our Administration can tolerate as necessary to continue to just have a program. I have heard that some faculty members over the years do consider that money wasted.

(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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?

+1

Especially since we now have at least 2 threads (game thread, post-game thread and the occasional "coach X got fired, can we get him thread") per game week to have the argument.

(11-18-2014 04:24 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 04:12 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  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?

I like how you conveniently got the last word before the moratorium.

If this statement is true- "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"- then what's the point??

For 80 of the institution's 100 years we competed at the highest level in football. That's where I would like us to be again. Staying where we are is not really an option beyond the very short term. We are either moving up (and granted the odds are against us) or we are moving down. The current system cannot stand for long. If the above statement is true, then why are we 'wasting' $10+ million annually?

All good points. I was seeking a pause in the fire Bailiff vs. keep him discussion. The overall University commitment to Div. 1 athletics should continue to be discussed. As far as the annual $10 million loss, that appears to be the accepted cost our Administration can tolerate as necessary to continue to just have a program. I have heard that some faculty members over the years do consider that money wasted.

Fair enough.

I'd be curious what sort of assurances Kaarlgard had in this regard when he was hired. He doesn't seem the type to willingly go into a no-win situation

(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  So, why not put a moratorium on this argument until at least the end of the season?

While there is a lot of repetition, there is also new information. And so people comment with new information and some of the posts are of course partial or full rehashes of past posts.

New information over past few days:

1. 69 offering a hypothesis that the path to P5 might run through MBB. I think it is a useful theory, one that CDC believed in (hence Tudor rebuild and firing WTW, whose record was objectively better than Bailiff's).

We have lost sight of that theory during the last two bleak MBB seasons but enthusiasm for Rhoades and some promising recruiting news brings it back.

2. Northwestern beat Notre Dame. NU is bad. they were below us in most computer polls. they lost 48-0 to a bad Iowa team. Their coach said "we stink" in a press conference. But they came from way down to beat Notre Dame. Juxtapose that with our effort against Marshall, and synapses fire.

3. Will Muschamp got fired with a 27-20 career record. It was a bracing reminder of what high expectations look like.

So I don't think a moratorium make sense when the world around us changes every week.

Some other things don't change. e.g., For as long as he stays at Rice, Bailliff will have the worst W-L record of any coach in FBS with his tenure or longer, unless he quickly peels off a string of 13-1 seasons. This is my "rubber ducky" fact about Bailiff, I think it says a lot about him and more about Rice's expectations for football, and I will post it when I think it is an important consideration to the topic at hand.

(11-18-2014 05:51 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  1. 69 offering a hypothesis that the path to P5 might run through MBB. I think it is a useful theory, one that CDC believed in (hence Tudor rebuild and firing WTW, whose record was objectively better than Bailiff's).

We have lost sight of that theory during the last two bleak MBB seasons but enthusiasm for Rhoades and some promising recruiting news brings it back.

I don't know if we lost sight of it, we just stood no chance under Braun.

Regardless, the theory probably gives us the best possible chance at P5 (lets be honest, no one will come calling based on our football right now) however it isn't really a good chance at all. UConn and Memphis being prime examples of this.

(11-18-2014 06:41 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 05:51 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  1. 69 offering a hypothesis that the path to P5 might run through MBB. I think it is a useful theory, one that CDC believed in (hence Tudor rebuild and firing WTW, whose record was objectively better than Bailiff's).

We have lost sight of that theory during the last two bleak MBB seasons but enthusiasm for Rhoades and some promising recruiting news brings it back.

I don't know if we lost sight of it, we just stood no chance under Braun.

Regardless, the theory probably gives us the best possible chance at P5 (lets be honest, no one will come calling based on our football right now) however it isn't really a good chance at all. UConn and Memphis being prime examples of this.

Dr. K recognizes that football, and not basketball, drives conference realignment. Having a Top 50 basketball program will help out national perception and reputation, but will do little to increase our attractiveness to the P5s.

MBB success and a revenue stream from MBB make it significantly easier to build the football program.

(11-18-2014 07:11 PM)At Ease Wrote:  MBB success and a revenue stream from MBB make it significantly easier to build the football program.

Take Duke, for example. They lose $15 million per year on athletics instead of $20 million. That difference is clearly due to basketball revenue and not ACC revenue sharing vs. CUSA.

Duke has been to the NCAA Basketball tournament every year except one since 1984. They have leveraged that success into football respectability every year since 2013.

Also see Memphis.

(11-18-2014 07:40 PM)temchugh Wrote:  Take Duke, for example. They lose $15 million per year on athletics instead of $20 million. That difference is clearly due to basketball revenue and not ACC revenue sharing vs. CUSA.

Duke has been to the NCAA Basketball tournament every year except one since 1984. They have leveraged that success into football respectability every year since 2013.

Also see Memphis.

FFS, I said it makes it easier, not guarantees.

(11-18-2014 07:40 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 07:11 PM)At Ease Wrote:  MBB success and a revenue stream from MBB make it significantly easier to build the football program.

Take Duke, for example. They lose $15 million per year on athletics instead of $20 million. That difference is clearly due to basketball revenue and not ACC revenue sharing vs. CUSA.

Duke has been to the NCAA Basketball tournament every year except one since 1984. They have leveraged that success into football respectability every year since 2013.

Also see Memphis.

Yeah, and it only took them 25+ years to leverage that success in MBB to see results in football. Terrific. NOT.

(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.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

As for the penalties, a curious thing. Statistically the team with more penalties wins more often than not. A look at the 5 most penalized teams right now would seem to be consistent with that--Baylor (8-1), TT (3-7, outlier), East Carolina (6-3), Marshall (10-0), Southern Cal (7-3). Compare the 5 fewest penalized teams--Navy (5-5), Tennessee (5-5), Iowa (7-3), New Mexico State (2-8), Michigan (5-5). So the 5 most penalized teams are 34-14 and the 5 least penalized teams are 24-26. But they must be well coached because they have fewer penalties. Also, and somewhat paradoxically, a lot of minor penalties hurt more than major penalties. In that regard, we're actually a bit ahead of Alabama. They've gotten their 43.6 penalty yards per game on 55 penalties (5.5 per game, averaging 7.9 yards per penalty) compared with Rice's 44.5 yards per game on 48 penalties (4.8 per game, 9.3 yards per penalty), so we have relatively fewer minor penalties. One other thing, NCAA penalty stats include only penalties accepted (NFL includes penalties called). If the play has a good result, you take the play. Since good teams presumably have more good plays, there's a bit of bias favoring more penalties for better teams in the NCAA stats.

(11-18-2014 05:51 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Some other things don't change. e.g., For as long as he stays at Rice, Bailliff will have the worst W-L record of any coach in FBS with his tenure or longer, unless he quickly peels off a string of 13-1 seasons. This is my "rubber ducky" fact about Bailiff, I think it says a lot about him and more about Rice's expectations for football, and I will post it when I think it is an important consideration to the topic at hand.

To be fair, some things do change. From the midpoint of 2012, Bailiff's record at Rice is 22-9 through today. I believe this guarantees that we will have more wins from 2012 through 2014 than any Rice team over a 3-year span.

No, it's not the SWC. But if you're going to trumpet the overall won loss record, it has to be acknowledged that the worst of that record was in years 1 and 3, and that there are two distinct 'periods' in his coaching tenure here.

Had there not been a turnaround from the midpoint of 2012, things would be different now, and we all know that. But things did change.

We all want things to continue to improve. I agree with what's been suggested elsewhere, that it would be appropriate to see how the rest of this year plays out before the anti-Bailiff crowd starts lobbying to roll the dice, and somehow not repeat the 1970's and 1980's.

(11-18-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

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.

(11-18-2014 05:51 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 03:54 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  So, why not put a moratorium on this argument until at least the end of the season?

While there is a lot of repetition, there is also new information. And so people comment with new information and some of the posts are of course partial or full rehashes of past posts.

New information over past few days:

1. 69 offering a hypothesis that the path to P5 might run through MBB. I think it is a useful theory, one that CDC believed in (hence Tudor rebuild and firing WTW, whose record was objectively better than Bailiff's).

We have lost sight of that theory during the last two bleak MBB seasons but enthusiasm for Rhoades and some promising recruiting news brings it back.

2. Northwestern beat Notre Dame. NU is bad. they were below us in most computer polls. they lost 48-0 to a bad Iowa team. Their coach said "we stink" in a press conference. But they came from way down to beat Notre Dame. Juxtapose that with our effort against Marshall, and synapses fire.

3. Will Muschamp got fired with a 27-20 career record. It was a bracing reminder of what high expectations look like.

So I don't think a moratorium make sense when the world around us changes every week.

Some other things don't change. e.g., For as long as he stays at Rice, Bailliff will have the worst W-L record of any coach in FBS with his tenure or longer, unless he quickly peels off a string of 13-1 seasons. This is my "rubber ducky" fact about Bailiff, I think it says a lot about him and more about Rice's expectations for football, and I will post it when I think it is an important consideration to the topic at hand.

It was an appeal, not a demand. We have been arguing about Bailiff's merits since 2007. I was a charter member of the tar and feather crowd. But I have not read anything new in several years about his termination versus his retention and the constant repetition, IMO, is getting tiresome. Particularly since the current administration has given him three extensions and raises. Unless he gets hired away, he will be here for the foreseeable future. We won't be firing him to hire a bigger name coach. So, I suggest we confine our discussion to players, game plays and strategy until after the season.

The University's overall commitment to athletics is another matter and deserves much discussion.

But it is a free country and I can understand where you are coming from.

(11-18-2014 02:06 PM)mrbig Wrote:  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".

good points

(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."

(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.

Your goals seem reasonable, and informed based on Karlgaard's comments. Top half of FBS is about #63 or better. I think that the last 3 years show us heading in that general direction, although we still need to improve some.

(11-18-2014 09:36 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(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.

Yes you have multiple definitions, but they seem to be more different ways of saying the same thing than substantive differences. At least you seem to have liked my phrasing of it; thanks. I do think we all have a pretty consistent idea of where "there" is, and a fairly consistent consensus that David Bailiff is not the guy to get us there. As to whether anyone is, I don't know.

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.

I'm pretty sure it is entirely fair. I considered two of the definitions to be steps on the way to the third one, and lots of people did not volunteer their opinions of what constitutes the "next level". Getting into a P5 conference would match my opinion of the next level.

If what we want, and the reason to fire Bailiff, is to get to the next level, let's define it and put in the next coach's contract. Else we will be doing all this forever.