Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Transformation vs Incrementalism
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 9,783
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 257
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #1
Transformation vs Incrementalism
Pulled this out of next season's thread to get more perspective. I carry the philosophy that while incremental change is necessary in places, transformational change is what Rice needs vis a vis success in top men's sports. Also appears to me to be related to fear-based coaching vs challenge-based coaching.

I get the sense that many are against this, and I can't understand exactly why?

The arguments about DBD seem to me to be about wanting transformational coaching vs incremental coaching. Or am I misreading?

Also, consider the question I pose below of interchanging Rhoades and DBD assuming all sport-related coaching how-to remained with the respective sport.

edit to above: Want to add that I consider the fall of Rice down to G5 to be a crisis for the university in many ways reiterated on other threads, hence, the Animal House video short below makes sense to me in that way.

Thank you.

here's my post from the other thread:


First to Rick--nice one on the App State joke. 03-lmfao Kudos to your having a sense of humor!

Second, to remind, when I say DBD I mean "David Bailiff Dynasty," which fits the situation no matter your feeling on him. I wanted to point out there was no curse word in the acronym.

Third, though I have to agree with Walt about this "level playing field" malarkey. In my opinion, Rice is most likely never going to be on a level playing field with the P5 schools. So what? I'm fine with that. We will almost always have a significant enrollment disadvantage for starters; and our academic standards are superior to all but perhaps a very few, and we should not change that either, it is who we are.

It is intuitively obvious that the whole reason Rice was seen fit to be left behind by the P5 schools in the first place was because they thought their "playing field" was far above us, and we could do better sinking down to our level.

That sentiment is against Rice's stated mantras of excellence in every other area of the University with the exception of major two sports over the last few decades. I can't reconcile how one would not want consistency across the board, or should Rice seek to sink down to a lower level playing field across the board to match that of football? Of course not, but I'm trying to show you where I believe the attitude of myself and posters like Walt comes from.

To me, and I believe to many of them, too many posters here have the "All is well" attitude, when clearly all is not well at all:



That's how your posts look to me defending our "progress."

Why does progress only have to be so infinitesimally incremental, when some of us see that it is possible to have some transformative leaps as well? Why do many of your posts come across as against transformative leaps for Rice?

The only thing I can think of is fear of pressure. If that is the case, and the underlying rationale for DBDs coaching style, then that probably shows why I'm not such a fan of him. I don't want coaches who coach scared out of fear. I want coaches with some cajones, too. That's what I believe Walt means when he repeats any time anywhere.

Rice can't be afraid of success if we want to get to the top. It's like you're saying, we want to get there, but we don't want to get there yet. Why not? What are you waiting for that's so important? I think many of the defenders are afraid of the transformation of Rice into a top program because it will put pressure on us to have to do all the things to maintain that success, lest we fall back again. It's easier to be where we are looking far up than to stay at the top when others will be trying to knock us down.

Lastly, The DBD and Rhoades comparison:

Assume for sake of illustration that DBD is the basketball coach and Rhoades is the football coach (Assume each has the current knowledge and skills of the other in the opposite sport.) Question what is the difference? To me, the answer is all about attitude and fear or the lack of it.

I don't think Rhoades is afraid. In my opinion, he relishes the challenge and wants them to bring it on. He's not satisfied with moral victories, and he's not afraid to put pressure on himself and his team from the get go and every chance he gets post game interviews. DBD as a basketball coach in my opinion would have us continue what has happened in that sport since 1970.

Rhoades appears to have a transformative attitude with little fear, DBD has demonstrated an incremental attitude and fear.

In my opinion, I believe Owl69/70, ruowls, and Ham and others have posted for years from their football knowledge of things DBD could change about his style to get better results as a coach. But the one thing running through their observations and suggestions seems to me to be DBD would have to transform himself from who he is. And as nice as he is and as much as he has his positives and all that, he's just not that type of coach. Or he has not shown it much over the past 8 years. We will continue to crawl when we could perhaps take a leap here or there.

It's time for some transformation in football, and in my opinion, next year's schedule is one where we could take a leap. Eventually we have to do it, why wait and set lower goals?

We do know from observation that one-loss and undefeated seasons from lower schools at least put your name in the National debates and arguments, generating publicity and helping to alter perception amongst the elite. That's what Rice needs.

Not many follow Rice football at all the way we do on this board. They don't know all the nuances or qualifications about our 'progress.' The national narrative about Rice is still pretty much where it has been, with a caveat of something may be happening but if it is in fact, it is still many years down the road before anyone really has to take more notice of us than they do now.

We are ready to have a statement season at Rice. I'm pretty sure Rhoades
wants it for basketball, sooner than later, and that is in my opinion, his goal here. DBD might do well to have lunch with Rhoades once in a while, or sit in on a few practices and games if he has not done so already. Maybe they can help each other a bit. And while he's at it, keep in touch with OG and baseball as well.

eta: Tried editing what I believe is your position. It may not be how you really feel, Rick but it is how you come across to me and perhaps others.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2015 05:30 PM by GoodOwl.)
01-10-2015 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,872
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 478
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #2
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism and Fear vs Challenge-based coaching styles
I don't think there is any fear of success at any level at Rice.

Not making the immediate jump from 2-10 to 12-0 is not a matter of attitude. If so, we also need an empty trophy case for a future NC trophy.

some things can be done quickly, others take some time. any of us who have lugged 260 pounds of flab to the gym can attest to that.

Basketball is not football. Neither of them are baseball. let's stop comparing apples, oranges, and pineapples.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2015 03:33 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
01-10-2015 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 9,783
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 257
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #3
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think there is any fear of success at any level at Rice.

I disagree, I do think there is some in some quarters.

(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not making the immediate jump from 2-10 to 12-0 is not a matter of attitude. If so, we also need an empty trophy case for a future NC trophy.

I'm not sure who said immediately from 2-10 to 12-0 besides you. I don't recall making that statement. I seem to remember being 8-5 with 3 consecutive bowls during this golden age of unprecedented success.

(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  some things can be done quickly, others take some time. any of us who have lugged 260 pounds of flab to the gym can attest to that.

You can incrementally lose weight while still eating bon-bons over the course of years or decades, or you can commit to exceptional nutrition and an accelerated exercise program that stretches you as much as possible every step of the way with no backsliding. The question becomes do you really want it or do you only say you really want it? I remember distinctly that exact wording to the syllable coming out of Scott Thompson's mouth to his players over and over his first 3 years coaching at Rice while he was fighting to change the basketball culture of "good enough for Rice to be happy with it."

(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Basketball is not football. Neither of them are baseball. let's stop comparing apples, oranges, and pineapples.

Cute, I like healthy fruits, too but it won't change what needs to be done in football. The pursuit of being "insanely great" does p--- off a lot of people. Ask Steve Jobs, or George Washington, or Abe Lincoln, or Mother Theresa, or the guys who landed a man on the moon 45 years ago. I think the world is a better place with such radical visionaries and agitators. They are there for the challenge, not merely the job.
01-10-2015 07:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,872
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 478
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #4
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-10-2015 07:25 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't think there is any fear of success at any level at Rice.

I disagree, I do think there is some in some quarters.

So what quarters would those be?

Quote: I seem to remember being 8-5 with 3 consecutive bowls during this golden age of unprecedented success.

Well, it is the first time for three consecutive bowls. that is unprecedented by definition. But yes, I know what you were trying to say.

Quote:
(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  some things can be done quickly, others take some time. any of us who have lugged 260 pounds of flab to the gym can attest to that.

you can commit to exceptional nutrition and an accelerated exercise program that stretches you as much as possible every step of the way with no backsliding.


Still takes time.

Quote: The question becomes do you really want it or do you only say you really want it? I remember distinctly that exact wording to the syllable coming out of Scott Thompson's mouth to his players over and over his first 3 years coaching at Rice while he was fighting to change the basketball culture of "good enough for Rice to be happy with it."


what does this have to do with the fact that lots of things take time?

And I have never heard of the culture you mention in quotes. Was that something Thompson said?


Quote:
(01-10-2015 03:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Basketball is not football. Neither of them are baseball. let's stop comparing apples, oranges, and pineapples.

Cute, I like healthy fruits, too but it won't change what needs to be done in football. The pursuit of being "insanely great" does p--- off a lot of people. Ask Steve Jobs, or George Washington, or Abe Lincoln, or Mother Theresa, or the guys who landed a man on the moon 45 years ago. I think the world is a better place with such radical visionaries and agitators. They are there for the challenge, not merely the job.

Once again, what does this have to do comparing similar things to each other? I doubt Mother Theresa would have been a very good general.
01-10-2015 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,300
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #5
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be? MBB was so bad under the last two years of Braun that the argument could be made that anyone would be an improvement, and if not, at least a change. MBB needed transformation. FB could use either at this point.

San Diego fired Schottenheimer after a 14-2 season. They proceeded to never hit that win total again.

We showed up against Fresno like a team on a mission. Never have I seen Rice under Bailiff tackle so well and come out of the tunnel 100% ready to play. Granted, Fresno isn't Oregon, but still, based on this game we know that it is possible for us to play at that level. Next season is a big year and I think that will tell us exactly how far we can go in the future.
01-11-2015 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,300
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #6
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
The bowl game changed a lot for me. We didn't coach based on fear or change our plans entirely based on them. We came out, executed well, kicked them hard and never let up. It gave me the feeling that there is a much higher ceiling with our coaching staff.
01-11-2015 11:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,872
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 478
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #7
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2015 12:36 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
01-12-2015 12:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #8
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.
01-12-2015 06:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,872
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 478
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #9
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 06:36 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.

I think of the scene in Butch Cassidy in which Butch and Sundance are trapped on a cliff with a posse closing in. figuring they have no shot at fighting off the posse, they elect to take the gamble and jump into the river below. ne says to the other "Hell, the jump will probably kill you". Trying to makeit seem reasonable.

I know some of our fans see no alternative but to jump and hope for the best. t worked for Butch and Sundance. Me, I'll fight the posse. just explaining my position. Feel free to jump without me. we each make our choices. i don't have to agree with yours, you certainly don't have to agree with mine. but to gamble what we have, on an untested, unproven assistant. far more of them become ex-head coaches than Urban Meyers or Nick Saban. might as well put all my money in Bolivian gold mining futures. Might work. How could it beworse?

JMHO.
01-12-2015 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
13thOwl Offline
Banned

Posts: 6,000
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: Rice University
Location:

Baseball GeniusDonatorsFootball Genius
Post: #10
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 06:36 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.

I think of the scene in Butch Cassidy in which Butch and Sundance are trapped on a cliff with a posse closing in. figuring they have no shot at fighting off the posse, they elect to take the gamble and jump into the river below. ne says to the other "Hell, the jump will probably kill you". Trying to makeit seem reasonable.

I know some of our fans see no alternative but to jump and hope for the best. t worked for Butch and Sundance. Me, I'll fight the posse. just explaining my position. Feel free to jump without me. we each make our choices. i don't have to agree with yours, you certainly don't have to agree with mine. but to gamble what we have, on an untested, unproven assistant. far more of them become ex-head coaches than Urban Meyers or Nick Saban. might as well put all my money in Bolivian gold mining futures. Might work. How could it beworse?

JMHO.

I don't know how to swim...
01-12-2015 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Antarius Offline
Say no to cronyism
*

Posts: 11,300
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 84
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
Post: #11
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.
01-12-2015 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #12
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 06:36 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.

I think of the scene in Butch Cassidy in which Butch and Sundance are trapped on a cliff with a posse closing in. figuring they have no shot at fighting off the posse, they elect to take the gamble and jump into the river below. ne says to the other "Hell, the jump will probably kill you". Trying to makeit seem reasonable.

I know some of our fans see no alternative but to jump and hope for the best. t worked for Butch and Sundance. Me, I'll fight the posse. just explaining my position. Feel free to jump without me. we each make our choices. i don't have to agree with yours, you certainly don't have to agree with mine. but to gamble what we have, on an untested, unproven assistant. far more of them become ex-head coaches than Urban Meyers or Nick Saban. might as well put all my money in Bolivian gold mining futures. Might work. How could it beworse?

JMHO.

But if our goal and aspiration is to gain re-entry into a P5, then what we have today-- though admittedly more satisfying than before-- just doesn't cut it....at least for many of us.
01-12-2015 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #13
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 10:26 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 06:36 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.

I think of the scene in Butch Cassidy in which Butch and Sundance are trapped on a cliff with a posse closing in. figuring they have no shot at fighting off the posse, they elect to take the gamble and jump into the river below. ne says to the other "Hell, the jump will probably kill you". Trying to makeit seem reasonable.

I know some of our fans see no alternative but to jump and hope for the best. t worked for Butch and Sundance. Me, I'll fight the posse. just explaining my position. Feel free to jump without me. we each make our choices. i don't have to agree with yours, you certainly don't have to agree with mine. but to gamble what we have, on an untested, unproven assistant. far more of them become ex-head coaches than Urban Meyers or Nick Saban. might as well put all my money in Bolivian gold mining futures. Might work. How could it beworse?

JMHO.

I don't know how to swim...

Then you might as well fight the posse. 05-stirthepot
01-12-2015 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #14
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.

Yup, that's my position entirely. BTW, I'm not convinced that the DB led regime is still making progress; rather, I fear that we've reached a plateau (mind you, one that's considerably better than before, but not good enough to get us to where we want/need to go).
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2015 11:32 AM by waltgreenberg.)
01-12-2015 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #15
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 06:36 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

But once again, OO, the question to many of us is not whether it is a gamble, but whether Bailiff can ever get us to where we want to be, or in the time window for the next round of conference realignment. And if the answer to that question is no, then the risk becomes more attractive, even when one recognizes the potential down side. Also, while no once can debate the progress that has been made over the past 9 years, it is far less clear whether Bailiff has reached his peak performance as a coach, and that the program has reached a plateau (rather than a point of continued progress). This past season was a step down from last season by almost any standard.

IMO, there is a false assumption here, and that is that Bailiff's performance or the performance of the football program in general will have any impact whatsoever on our being gobbled up by a P5 conference. Our facilities, and even more importantly, our attendance/alumni base are problems that are as big and bigger, respectively, than our current on-field performance. If P5 (playing with our SWC buddies) is the ultimate goal, I think we are more than 5, and almost certainly more than 10 years away. I'd love to be proven wrong, but realistically I see nothing that would make me think betting on a 'fast' invite to P5 status is feasible. Others may see it differently, and that's fine, but there was nothing in the graphs that showed the size of audiences watching our bowl games that distinguish us positively from any other program with a small following.

I get the urge to gamble, but I think it is a bad gamble, at least while we are winning games at the rate we have over the last 3 years. We have 50 years of coaching change data and records to reflect on. I get that the last 3 years were not achieved in the SWC, but 29 years between winning seasons and no bowls for 45 years was not a 'one off' either.

Our glory days occurred in a vastly different era. College football was segregated in the South and elsewhere, we still had 2-way players (pre-platoon), players were smaller and TV and the media had not begun to have even a fraction of the influence they have now. So comparing our records now to Jess Neely's teams is apples and oranges.

You mention a 2-game drop-off from 2013 to 2014. But that's a drop-off from our 1st undisputed conference championship I'm more than 50 years. And a drop-off to a win total that we've achieved 4 times since 1949. If we were dropping from 5 wins to 3 I'd be more inclined to agree with you, all other things equal.

I fully understand the OldOwl sentiment that the use of "unprecedented' to describe our current success is annoying given it is in CUSA and not the SWC. But what ought to be annoying is that unfortunately it is still true. In the modern era of college football we have no history to point back to.

If we can continue to have winning seasons, can continue to compete for and sometimes win CUSA championships, become a 'bowl regular' and gain recognition as a Top 5 G5 program, we'll have a lot better base to solve our other problems than we have now. (This is not a signature win post- I'll take 'em where and when we get 'em)

I'm merely trying to express my opinion why I think the gamble Optimistic is describing doesn't appear attractive much at all to me after the last 3 seasons. That could change, but at least for now I am happy to proceed on the belief that our 'unprecedented' run can still continue in our current situation.
01-12-2015 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #16
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
Rick, that's the crust of our disagreement on this-- IMO, there's no such thing as "recognition of a Top 5 or Top 10 (neither of which we are now) G5 program". Recognition to whom? Certainly not the national audience or the P5 conferences who could care less about our rankings amongst the G5s. You're deceiving yourself, IMO, if you truly believe such a comparison amongst the G5s is going to do diddledeesquat for us. And even if we do continue to progress to the point where we are a Top 5 - 10 G5 program (and such a future under Bailiff is precisely what is in question), it continues to be meaningless from a national perception basis unless and until we start consistently competing against Top 50 teams, and pull off a couple signature wins.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2015 03:25 PM by waltgreenberg.)
01-12-2015 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #17
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.

TCU and Boise each took more than 10 years to reach their current positions. One of them is p5, the other is considered at the top of the G5 division. Sounds like you're expecting a coaching hire to achieve something faster than TCU when we aren't providing the same financial or attendance support, and not at least noting that TCU kept a single coach (who had detractors in their fan base in the first 3or 4 years after Franchione left)

And Boise State is better off than us, but still has their nose up against the plate glass window.
01-12-2015 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #18
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 03:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.

TCU and Boise each took more than 10 years to reach their current positions. One of them is p5, the other is considered at the top of the G5 division. Sounds like you're expecting a coaching hire to achieve something faster than TCU when we aren't providing the same financial or attendance support, and not at least noting that TCU kept a single coach (who had detractors in their fan base in the first 3or 4 years after Franchione left)

And Boise State is better off than us, but still has their nose up against the plate glass window.

Come on, Rick-- it took TCU 10 years because there was a very stable P5 conference alignment from the late 1990s to 2010. Boise is NEVER going to get there due to their location-- sad, but true. We do not have to achieve Boise St. level of on-field performance to become more attractive than them to the P5s.
01-12-2015 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,165
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #19
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 03:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 03:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(01-11-2015 11:37 PM)Antarius Wrote:  The position that I understand Rick and OO to be taking is that progress may not be as fast as we would like, but it is 1. happening 2. if we were to replace Bailiff with someone else, would they be able to achieve more? Truth is, we don't know the answer to #2. And if we were to consider a replacement, who would it be?

Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.

TCU and Boise each took more than 10 years to reach their current positions. One of them is p5, the other is considered at the top of the G5 division. Sounds like you're expecting a coaching hire to achieve something faster than TCU when we aren't providing the same financial or attendance support, and not at least noting that TCU kept a single coach (who had detractors in their fan base in the first 3or 4 years after Franchione left)

And Boise State is better off than us, but still has their nose up against the plate glass window.

Come on, Rick-- it took TCU 10 years because there was a very stable P5 conference alignment from the late 1990s to 2010. Boise is NEVER going to get there due to their location-- sad, but true. We do not have to achieve Boise St. level of on-field performance to become more attractive than them to the P5s.

Seems like an odd reply. If it was so difficult for TCU to move up that it took them 10 years in a stable climate, wouldn't one expect it to be even more difficult if the climate is constantly changing?

I assume you're actually advocating that since things are in such upheaval, that we do not have 10 years from the start of the climb to reach the level TCU was at when they got the invite? I'd say that we're about 3 years into our current climb (assuming that the climb we need to make did not start with the hiring of Bailiff).
01-12-2015 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
waltgreenberg Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,574
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 135
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Chicago

The Parliament Awards
Post: #20
RE: Transformation vs Incrementalism
(01-12-2015 03:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 03:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 03:29 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 11:11 AM)Antarius Wrote:  
(01-12-2015 12:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Not bad, Ant. you win thee perceptivenss award for the Parliament, but still, the second one needs clarifying.

of course, if Bailiff is replaced, the new guy may be able to do more. Or he might do less, a lot less. ask our friends at SoMiss how that works. what I don't buy is that replacing Bailiff is an automatic upgrade. Call it what it it is, a gamble. as for names, we have been given a couple: Leach, and "some young humgry guy".

I get that progress may be too slow. Sure a lot slower than I would have liked, but as with any gamble, we must assess what we are risking against the hoped for gains, amd the liklihood of achieving them. Anybody But Bailiff seems like a bad gamble to me. Hire Urban Meyer sounds good. iHire unnamed assisstant? How much better than Bailiff must the guy be to warrant that bet?

show me a good bet and I will line up with yalll to get him. Don't and I won't.

Thanks for the clarification.

The other side, that Walt is on is that the realignment window is rapidly closing. As a result, we have finite time to make a jump to the big leagues. As the DB led progress is slow, we may not (and likely wont) make it to the TCU/Boise level in 2-3 years. Given this, any gamble is better than none as we need to go all in.

This season had some highs such as the bowl game and some lows like ODU and LT. IMO next year will be a good test to see how high we can go. We definitely don't want to make a hasty decision.

TCU and Boise each took more than 10 years to reach their current positions. One of them is p5, the other is considered at the top of the G5 division. Sounds like you're expecting a coaching hire to achieve something faster than TCU when we aren't providing the same financial or attendance support, and not at least noting that TCU kept a single coach (who had detractors in their fan base in the first 3or 4 years after Franchione left)

And Boise State is better off than us, but still has their nose up against the plate glass window.

Come on, Rick-- it took TCU 10 years because there was a very stable P5 conference alignment from the late 1990s to 2010. Boise is NEVER going to get there due to their location-- sad, but true. We do not have to achieve Boise St. level of on-field performance to become more attractive than them to the P5s.

Seems like an odd reply. If it was so difficult for TCU to move up that it took them 10 years in a stable climate, wouldn't one expect it to be even more difficult if the climate is constantly changing?

I assume you're actually advocating that since things are in such upheaval, that we do not have 10 years from the start of the climb to reach the level TCU was at when they got the invite? I'd say that we're about 3 years into our current climb (assuming that the climb we need to make did not start with the hiring of Bailiff).

It didn't take TCU 10 years to climb; rather, it took them 10 years before the P5s undertook a period of realignment. We need to position ourselves for the next round of realignment-- whether that's in 3 - 5 years as most suspect or 10 years.
01-12-2015 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.