(11-22-2014 02:02 AM)Chef Owl Wrote:  Rice is now 7-4, almost assuring us a bowl berth for the third straight year as well as having a 7 win season for the third straight year (first time in school history for both). Just sit back and think about that. Just for a second.

Glad about it. It's not enough.

What is enough? Ask Wayne Graham--or is he too greedy and unreasonable?

UCLA, A&M x 2, Miss St, ND. Those 5 of the losses vs top 50 teams since 2012. The others I believe were against Marshall, UH, and La Tech - programs Bailiff has beaten before. Unless you really expect Rice to beat powerhouses like UCLA or A&M, since 2012 the 0-for vs top 50 teams is quite understandable and not a major concern, not a reason to downplay the 3 straight bowl seasons.

(11-22-2014 12:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  UCLA, A&M x 2, Miss St, ND. Those 5 of the losses vs top 50 teams since 2012. The others I believe were against Marshall, UH, and La Tech - programs Bailiff has beaten before. Unless you really expect Rice to beat powerhouses like UCLA or A&M, since 2012 the 0-for vs top 50 teams is quite understandable and not a major concern, not a reason to downplay the 3 straight bowl seasons.

Okay, I'll bite-- how many teams have we beaten in the last three years that were ranked higher than we were? Marshall in last year's championship game-- that's one. How many others? How many Top 65 ranked teams have we beaten during that period? Bottom line is that Bailiff has turned the program around and consistently (save for the occasional ODU-like hiccup) beaten teams ranked in the lowest quartile of college football. However, we have also consistently failed to compete against teams ranked even in the 3rd quartile, and get consistently blown out by teams ranked in the Top half of the FBS division.

(11-22-2014 01:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 12:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  UCLA, A&M x 2, Miss St, ND. Those 5 of the losses vs top 50 teams since 2012. The others I believe were against Marshall, UH, and La Tech - programs Bailiff has beaten before. Unless you really expect Rice to beat powerhouses like UCLA or A&M, since 2012 the 0-for vs top 50 teams is quite understandable and not a major concern, not a reason to downplay the 3 straight bowl seasons.

Okay, I'll bite-- how many teams have we beaten in the last three years that were ranked higher than we were? Marshall in last year's championship game-- that's one. How many others? How many Top 65 ranked teams have we beaten during that period? Bottom line is that Bailiff has turned the program around and consistently (save for the occasional ODU-like hiccup) beaten teams ranked in the lowest quartile of college football. However, we have also consistently failed to compete against teams ranked even in the 3rd quartile, and get consistently blown out by teams ranked in the Top half of the FBS division.

Right but how many teams have we even played ranked higher than us, but not Top 20 level powerhouses? How many opportunities have we had to prove ourselves against a 30-50 team since 2012? Prior to 2012, outside of 2008, we flat out sucked. We didn't even have winning records then, so no point in talking about top 50 wins during that period.

Last year, our only loss outside of the P5 powerhouses was UH and that was still a very close game that we could/maybe should have had.

(11-22-2014 12:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  UCLA, A&M x 2, Miss St, ND. Those 5 of the losses vs top 50 teams since 2012. The others I believe were against Marshall, UH, and La Tech - programs Bailiff has beaten before. Unless you really expect Rice to beat powerhouses like UCLA or A&M, since 2012 the 0-for vs top 50 teams is quite understandable and not a major concern, not a reason to downplay the 3 straight bowl seasons.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad for it. I truly am. I was here for the Jerry Burndt years.

I am also distinctly aware of the combination of circumstances that contributed to it happening, of which Bailiff is only one small part.

I'm especially glad for the players that they get to go to another bowl after sitting at home (sometimes unjustifiably) for most of these past 40+ years.

(11-22-2014 01:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 12:56 PM)Buho00 Wrote:  UCLA, A&M x 2, Miss St, ND. Those 5 of the losses vs top 50 teams since 2012. The others I believe were against Marshall, UH, and La Tech - programs Bailiff has beaten before. Unless you really expect Rice to beat powerhouses like UCLA or A&M, since 2012 the 0-for vs top 50 teams is quite understandable and not a major concern, not a reason to downplay the 3 straight bowl seasons.

Okay, I'll bite-- how many teams have we beaten in the last three years that were ranked higher than we were? Marshall in last year's championship game-- that's one. How many others? How many Top 65 ranked teams have we beaten during that period? Bottom line is that Bailiff has turned the program around and consistently (save for the occasional ODU-like hiccup) beaten teams ranked in the lowest quartile of college football. However, we have also consistently failed to compete against teams ranked even in the 3rd quartile, and get consistently blown out by teams ranked in the Top half of the FBS division.

That is the next step up then. Can't do it until we play one again.

Again, I don't think David Bailiff can get us to the next level, because I don't think his philosophy and approach adequately address the things that are required to do so.

What I do think as a result of this year, but didn't think before, is that he may be capable of maintaining at this level for a period of time. That being the case, and given that there are no slam-dunk choices out there, I think the best strategy at this point is to hold what we have in football, get basketball fixed, and maintain baseball. Once we reach that point, then revisit football.

(11-22-2014 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think his philosophy and approach adequately address the things that are required to do so.

What are those things that are required?

(11-22-2014 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Again, I don't think David Bailiff can get us to the next level, because I don't think his philosophy and approach adequately address the things that are required to do so.

What I do think as a result of this year, but didn't think before, is that he may be capable of maintaining at this level for a period of time. That being the case, and given that there are no slam-dunk choices out there, I think the best strategy at this point is to hold what we have in football, get basketball fixed, and maintain baseball. Once we reach that point, then revisit football.

I agree with this, except for one thing:

If we wait that long to "fix" football, it might be too late. I think that the bifurcation between the haves and have-nots is going to happen sooner rather than later. Some might argue that the final phase of the split has already begun.

I've been posting here for six years now, and this is what I see: our football program is a little better off, while our conference standing has become a whole lot worse. That is not a recipe for advancement; matter of fact, it might be the nail in our program's coffin as far as being in the FBS is concerned.

(11-22-2014 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't think his philosophy and approach adequately address the things that are required to do so.

What are those things that are required?

There are two ways to get better:
1) Get better players, or
2) Get the players you have to play better.

Bailiff has done a great job of 1) but not 2). I don't think 1) alone can get us there.

On the other hand, given where we are, I would agree with you that we can do a lot worse than a guy who can do a great job of 1).

If the FBS divides, the P5 is going to adopt practices, like paying athletes and dispensing with all pretense of academics, that Rice would never agree to anyway.

(11-22-2014 02:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  If the FBS divides, the P5 is going to adopt practices, like paying athletes and dispensing with all pretense of academics, that Rice would never agree to anyway.

This is also an excellent point. In that case, we should move to stay D1 in everything except football. And if that isn't permitted because of the NCAA's byzantine strictures, then we should petition for relief.

I would share a bit of my perspective. I grew up in Alabama when Bear Bryant was coaching at Alabama and Shug Jordan at Auburn. There was a very common perception that Shug recruited more talent but Bear did a better job of getting the most out of what talent he had. We played against a lot of guys who ended up at each place, and at least as high school players Marvin Tucker and Wayne Burns gave us a lot more trouble than did Billy Neighbors and Bill Oliver. But Neighbors and Oliver played on national championship caliber teams for Bryant, and Burns and Tucker played on 6-4 teams for Shug.

Bailiff actually reminds me a lot of Shug, good old country boy, could definitely recruit, but his teams were constantly jumping offsides and fumbling at exactly the worst possible moments to do so. The Punt, Bama, Punt year is the one time that I thought one of Shug's teams overachieved and one of Bear's underachieved. Alabama fans still revere Bryant in god-like terms. But Auburn fans are pretty happy that they had Shug, too. He won a lot of games there, even if he usually seemed to come up short versus Bama. If Bailiff can give us a few years of what Shug gave Auburn, and then we can find a Bryant who can build off that base to take us to the next level, then that would be ideal. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with giving Bailiff a few more years to secure the base.

(11-22-2014 02:13 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 02:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  If the FBS divides, the P5 is going to adopt practices, like paying athletes and dispensing with all pretense of academics, that Rice would never agree to anyway.

This is also an excellent point. In that case, we should move to stay D1 in everything except football. And if that isn't permitted because of the NCAA's byzantine strictures, then we should petition for relief.

If that happens, and I think there's a decent chance that it will, we are not going to be alone in our predicament. The really tough choices will be those that places like Vandy, Duke, Wake, Northwestern, even Stanford have to make. I can see the oft-discussed but heretofore unlikely Magnolia League coming to pass if things go that way.

(11-22-2014 02:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would share a bit of my perspective. I grew up in Alabama when Bear Bryant was coaching at Alabama and Shug Jordan at Auburn. There was a very common perception that Shug recruited more talent but Bear did a better job of getting the most out of what talent he had. We played against a lot of guys who ended up at each place, and at least as high school players Marvin Tucker and Wayne Burns gave us a lot more trouble than did Billy Neighbors and Bill Oliver. But Neighbors and Oliver played on national championship caliber teams for Bryant, and Burns and Tucker played on 6-4 teams for Shug.

Bailiff actually reminds me a lot of Shug, good old country boy, could definitely recruit, but his teams were constantly jumping offsides and fumbling at exactly the worst possible moments to do so. The Punt, Bama, Punt year is the one time that I thought one of Shug's teams overachieved and one of Bear's underachieved. Alabama fans still revere Bryant in god-like terms. But Auburn fans are pretty happy that they had Shug, too. He won a lot of games there, even if he usually seemed to come up short versus Bama. If Bailiff can give us a few years of what Shug gave Auburn, and then we can find a Bryant who can build off that base to take us to the next level, then that would be ideal. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with giving Bailiff a few more years to secure the base.

Whether we like it or not Bailiff is not going anywhere. He is comfortable. He knows that he can win 6 games easily in this conference. He will never go anywhere where the word "accountability" would be used. If he went to the Big 12 (Kansas) he would be forced to hire a true OC not the wonderful Co-OC scheme he came up with. Maybe he thought by having two, we could split the criticism. Edmonson is the one that calls the plays. Lynch focuses on the receivers. So next time you get a run on 3 and long, don't blame Lynch

As other regular posters have said... We usually distill these types of threads down to defending Coach Bailiff or insisting on his dismissal because he can't get us to the next level.

Most of the time I can't bring myself to read thru all of these threads. After a while my eyes glaze over and I fall asleep.

Referring to the name of this thread...My perspective is this: Coach Bailiff has taken us to four bowls (counting this season). Three in a row. Three consecutive wining seasons of seven or more wins. A school record. He has achieved an obvious improvement in the quality of our football players. He has continued to maintain our high level of academic success and reputation of our football players. He enjoys a great reputation among his peers and among his employers. He does all of this AT RICE...without the best facilities or student or fan support. And.. Maybe most importantly... We don't have a lot of dough to toss around and buy out his contract.
So.... From my perspective... Even if he's NOT going to take us to the next level.... Unless this program falls off a cliff in the next two or three seasons.... Or he gets an invite to coach at a place "at the next level".....Rice University is not going to fire Coach Bailiff.
Just my perspective.

(11-22-2014 03:19 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  Most of the time I can't bring myself to read thru all of these threads.

+1. I read maybe 5% of them, and almost all of that is material that has been rehashed ad nauseam.

I guess where I come down is that I don't think Bailiff is the guy who can get us to the next level, but I think he is the guy who can get us to where we can hire the guy who can get us to the next level. And I don't think we are yet at the point that we could attract the interest of the guy who can get us to the next level. Right now this still looks like a job that takes a miracle worker. Go to bowls sic years in a row and it starts to look like a job where you can make a name for yourself. Those two jobs attract different levels of applicants.

And if Bailiff truly cannot gets to the next level, then yes there is an argument that we are wasting time keeping him here. But I don't think so. A run of 8-5 seasons makes this look like a better job. And that attracts a better field of candidates when Bailiff does move on. And that's a step on the road to the next level.

(11-22-2014 02:50 PM)KTOWL Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 02:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I would share a bit of my perspective. I grew up in Alabama when Bear Bryant was coaching at Alabama and Shug Jordan at Auburn. There was a very common perception that Shug recruited more talent but Bear did a better job of getting the most out of what talent he had. We played against a lot of guys who ended up at each place, and at least as high school players Marvin Tucker and Wayne Burns gave us a lot more trouble than did Billy Neighbors and Bill Oliver. But Neighbors and Oliver played on national championship caliber teams for Bryant, and Burns and Tucker played on 6-4 teams for Shug.

Bailiff actually reminds me a lot of Shug, good old country boy, could definitely recruit, but his teams were constantly jumping offsides and fumbling at exactly the worst possible moments to do so. The Punt, Bama, Punt year is the one time that I thought one of Shug's teams overachieved and one of Bear's underachieved. Alabama fans still revere Bryant in god-like terms. But Auburn fans are pretty happy that they had Shug, too. He won a lot of games there, even if he usually seemed to come up short versus Bama. If Bailiff can give us a few years of what Shug gave Auburn, and then we can find a Bryant who can build off that base to take us to the next level, then that would be ideal. But I'm not at all uncomfortable with giving Bailiff a few more years to secure the base.

Whether we like it or not Bailiff is not going anywhere. He is comfortable. He knows that he can win 6 games easily in this conference. He will never go anywhere where the word "accountability" would be used. If he went to the Big 12 (Kansas) he would be forced to hire a true OC not the wonderful Co-OC scheme he came up with. Maybe he thought by having two, we could split the criticism. Edmonson is the one that calls the plays. Lynch focuses on the receivers. So next time you get a run on 3 and long, don't blame Lynch

I never understand posters on here whose critiques suggest, either directly or indirectly, that Bailiff lacks character.

(11-22-2014 12:42 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 12:03 PM)Barney Wrote:  

(11-22-2014 11:42 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  For us, 3 consecutive winning seasons and bowl games are unprecedented. True, we are at a much lower level than the old SWC, WAC or our first few years in the CUSA. For some of us, we look back and and only see how far we have fallen. Others cannot reconcile our high academic rankings with our low position in the major sports except baseball of course. The perception seems to be that only by dominating our foes at this level can we rise back up through the ranks.

I have been as critical of Bailiff as other posters and have questioned whether he can get us to that next level, however we define it. But where we are now is not his fault and he has accomplished 3 winning seasons in a row with integrity. He represents the University well, graduates his players and has ran a clean program AFAIK.

Perhaps we should be thankful for what we have and not so quick to find fault. No we don't beat top 50 teams but they have well financed programs of higher paid coaches with academically less proficient, but much more physically talented players. They have student athletes, we have athletic students. There is honor in that and that should make us glad that Bailiff is our coach.

He is not perfect, to be sure, and I'm sure we will find reasons to criticize in the future but after 8 years and 4 bowls, he deserves our support.

Very well-said.
EVERY other coach, sportswriter, commentator, and opposing team's fan base think we're crazy to criticize him this much.
Nice thread title.

I'd be very interested to hear the filtered perspectives of those on this board who actually played football at Rice. I didn't, but I've always respected highly those who did - - I wouldn't think it could've been very fun, and I wouldn't think it very realistic to expect us to have a football powerhouse.

Having expectations of being a perennial Top 50 caliber club that can compete with other such teams and pull off the occasional signature win against a Top 25 program is NOT unrealistic, IMHO. The truth of the matter is, as improved as we are as a program, we still do only rarely compete against teams ranked even slightly ahead of us, and we get consistently blown out by teams ranked in the Top 50.

Walt, I think you are absolutely correct. I enjoy your posts which are usually very well supported with facts. Right now, we are not competitive with the Top 50 programs, although that does not include all of the P5 teams.

Where we now disagree is whether David Bailiff is making us very competitive at our current level. IMHO, until the powers that be on campus provide the funding for the infrastructure improvements we need to move to the next level, i.e. salaries, facilities, marketing ect., he is keeping us respectable. I wish I had such money to burn. Until then, we're not going to make a change. If he continues to have success, we benefit and someday maybe he'll move on.

But keep on pointing out the deficiencies as we should not view our situation with rose colored glasses.