Huh, who knew coaches who "stink" can win a conference championship or three bowl games. Must be really easy being a D-1 coach!

Seriously, Bailiff is not the best coach in the game; there is ample evidence of that. But there is ample evidence he doesn't "stink" as a D-1 coach.

(09-26-2015 09:36 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  In 9 years this staff has significantly out coached and out schemed one opponent....Marshall in the CUSA title game. The three Bowl wins came against teams with quite a bit less talent than we had for that season and game.

Tiki, I'm happy we won that game. But more and more, that lone semi-prestigious victory looks like the unusual outlier for Bailiff & Co.

I have little doubt that the stars and circumstances lined up to thwart Marshall in that game as much as, if not more than, anything that Bailiff and staff did.

If that game had been played at Marshall, which by many views it should have been, we would have most probably gotten creamed. Not what I would have wanted, but likely what would have happened.

If Tom Herman is "Mensa" then David Bailff is "Mesa" --a plateau that while not completely flat has no impressive peak or summit it can go to.

(09-26-2015 11:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huh, who knew coaches who "stink" can win a conference championship or three bowl games. Must be really easy being a D-1 coach!

Seriously, Bailiff is not the best coach in the game; there is ample evidence of that. But there is ample evidence he doesn't "stink" as a D-1 coach.

"Stink" is pretty harsh. But, to get real, you have to acknowledge that winning bowl games and conference championships today is quite different than even ten years ago. 72 teams make bowls and some conferences are composed of bottom feeders. If we only played top 50 teams, our record would be so dismal that "stink" would be the right verb to describe Bailiff's performance.

(09-26-2015 11:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 11:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Huh, who knew coaches who "stink" can win a conference championship or three bowl games. Must be really easy being a D-1 coach!

Seriously, Bailiff is not the best coach in the game; there is ample evidence of that. But there is ample evidence he doesn't "stink" as a D-1 coach.

"Stink" is pretty harsh. But, to get real, you have to acknowledge that winning bowl games and conference championships today is quite different than even ten years ago. 72 teams make bowls and some conferences are composed of bottom feeders. If we only played top 50 teams, our record would be so dismal that "stink" would be the right verb to describe Bailiff's performance.

I figured I was real enough by acknowledging that he is not the best coach. I recognize that who Bailiff has beat aren't the Baylor's and Texas' every year. But like you said, "stink" is harsh. He had to beat other coaches along the way to those victories and bowl wins.

(09-26-2015 08:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 04:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What exactly are we trying to accomplish here?
Because I can't discern any legitimate objective.

Here's a more detailed expression of where I'm going with this.

I'm trying to figure out how this coaching staff expects to win football games.

...

2) Without a coherent philosophy, I'm not sure how you win any games.

This coaching staff's goal does not appear to be to win important games, if you look at the facts of their record. Garbage games, sure, but important games against national opponents which could transform the national perception of Rice? No, that's not the gig here for this coach. This coaching staff's only goal appears to be to figure out how to seem to be doing just barely enough not to get fired at Rice, for this coaching staff is well aware they would not be welcome on most other Div-I staffs.

Their coherent philosophy is apparently sound--their leader has been here going on a decade without really changing hardly anything--so it must be a coherent strategy that works--for them personally, not so much for Rice.

(09-26-2015 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bailiff is ranked 82 in pay and Briles is 22. You get what you pay for.

That's one thing I agree with you on, Lad. I've been against trying to do football coaching on the cheap from the beginning. Bailiff is not worth anywhere near #22; and I'm not sure he's worth anywhere near #82 either. The reason is that nationally in the last of the two games most regular fans and football people will use to form their current opinion of Rice football, it's "yup, same ol' Rice--they stink at football."

That perception devastates all the good things JK, the BOT, Leebron and yes, even Coach Mesa himself have done here. We need a Head Football Coach who can Transform that national opinion and perception of Rice, and the facts show that bailiff just can't get the job done here, no matter how many chances he gets.

We now have a whole season to wait for another opportunity game. Yeah, we could still win CUSA, but nationally few will care. They'll just reaffirm how bad CUSA is if a Rice team that lost to Texas and got destroyed by Baylor can win it. Not fair, but very true.

(09-27-2015 12:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bailiff is ranked 82 in pay and Briles is 22. You get what you pay for.

That's one thing I agree with you on, Lad. I've been against trying to do football coaching on the cheap from the beginning. Bailiff is not worth anywhere near #22; and I'm not sure he's worth anywhere near #82 either. The reason is that nationally in the last of the two games most regular fans and football people will use to form their current opinion of Rice football, it's "yup, same ol' Rice--they stink at football."

That perception devastates all the good things JK, the BOT, Leebron and yes, even Coach Mesa himself have done here. We need a Head Football Coach who can Transform that national opinion and perception of Rice, and the facts show that bailiff just can't get the job done here, no matter how many chances he gets.

We now have a whole season to wait for another opportunity game. Yeah, we could still win CUSA, but nationally few will care. They'll just reaffirm how bad CUSA is if a Rice team that lost to Texas and got destroyed by Baylor can win it. Not fair, but very true.

Haven't we decided that Bailiff pretty much beats most Bottom 75 teams he plays? If so, doesn't that mean he would at least be worth near #75?

What reasons do you have that he is worse than #82?

(09-26-2015 09:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 09:27 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  There appears to be as much thought and strategy goes into our game plans as one has in the old vibrating football game.

The same game plan against everyone, and hardly ever make in-game adjustments. Certainly makes it easy on the opposition scouting and coaching staff. We beat team we can out-physical and out-talent, and we lose badly to anyone the a pulse or an opposing coach who is not brain-dead.

I've said it before, I'll say it again-- DB is a really good character guy, a very good recruiter, an outstanding ambassador for the University...and a sub-par football coach, who is never going to get us over the hump and to the next level (which is Top 50 - 65 level). Are the Bailiff defenders going to continue to debate my contention that we've plateaued over the past 3+ years of "historically unprecedented success"? I dare you to give us even a shred of evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, a loss to Baylor says nothing about whether we're getting over the hump to the Top 50-65 level . . . either way.

Obviously, we don't know where Baylor will end the year in the rankings. Right now they are Top 5.

IF, and it is definitely an if, they finish the year Top 5, or even Top 10, then looking back over Rice's history, how far back do we have to go before we can claim a win over a Top 5 (end of year) program?

(Not talking a win over a team that was #5 and fell afterwards)

I'm not happy about today, but I'm guessing that Baylor would've convincingly won against 90%+ of the teams in the country today (including all of the Big 12 except for maybe TCU).

Right now, I'm wishing more that we could've had hindsight in one or two areas prior to the UT game more than anything (where we punted for starters).

Regardless, what any one game means isn't going to be clear until the end of the year.

I know where you stand on this Walt, and I'm not arguing for or against your point. Just observing that this specific game has nothing to do with that point.

(09-27-2015 01:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 12:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bailiff is ranked 82 in pay and Briles is 22. You get what you pay for.

That's one thing I agree with you on, Lad. I've been against trying to do football coaching on the cheap from the beginning. Bailiff is not worth anywhere near #22; and I'm not sure he's worth anywhere near #82 either. The reason is that nationally in the last of the two games most regular fans and football people will use to form their current opinion of Rice football, it's "yup, same ol' Rice--they stink at football."

That perception devastates all the good things JK, the BOT, Leebron and yes, even Coach Mesa himself have done here. We need a Head Football Coach who can Transform that national opinion and perception of Rice, and the facts show that bailiff just can't get the job done here, no matter how many chances he gets.

We now have a whole season to wait for another opportunity game. Yeah, we could still win CUSA, but nationally few will care. They'll just reaffirm how bad CUSA is if a Rice team that lost to Texas and got destroyed by Baylor can win it. Not fair, but very true.

Haven't we decided that Bailiff pretty much beats most Bottom 75 teams he plays? If so, doesn't that mean he would at least be worth near #75?

What reasons do you have that he is worse than #82?

A: See bolded points above that you quoted in my post. I think WKU is going to have a lot of fun watching both the NoTexas and the Baylor videos this week. If I was them I'd pass deep most every down.

I think the only thing we did that really shocked the Baylor crowd was that we scored so few points on them after their defense consistently opened huge hole for us. If the coach had more of a clue, perhaps he would have noticed this and changed his pregame "strategy" based upon what his team was actually experiencing in the game being played. That also demotes him lower than #82--can't seem to adjust to in-game conditions different from what he thought would happen; and doesn't appear to plan and prepare his teams well for all the possibilities of what could happen in actual games.

To succeed you
1) Have a plan,
2) Sell that plan, and
3) Execute that plan.

Wayne Graham had a plan, he sold that plan, and he executed it.
Mike Rhoades has a plan, he has sold that plan, and execution is a work in progress.
David Bailiff has been here nine years, and I don't know what his plan is.

I do know that improved recruiting and better relations with the remainder of the university appear to be elements of his plan, and I'm totally supportive of both. Beyond that, I don't know how he plans to win football games.

Biggest issue for me is something that was talked about several pages ago. The team appeared completely unprepared to play, in terms of game plan, execution (tackling, passing, etc), and most importantly in intensity. As some have pointed out teams we have beaten (some even regularly) somehow seem to put together a better effort against top teams than we do.

I don't want to say we had the "deer in the headlights" look but we certainly didn't seem like we had any confidence at all. If we did it seem to evaporate in the first drive snafu's with the play calling and then ultimately evaporated completely on the fumble by Driphus. This staff gives many of us no confidence when we go up against top 50 teams and it looked like the team felt the same way yesterday.

The results this far even though we are 2-2 just say same old Rice. The athletic department has a sound game plan for enhancing HRS and a strategy for marketing the team, however it is tough to sell tickets to anyone other than diehards when games like this and UT continue to happen. JK and his staff has instilled enough confidence that the donors have begun to step up but I am afraid many more seasons of the same old, same old and that confidence will fade.

(09-27-2015 01:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 12:52 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 08:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Bailiff is ranked 82 in pay and Briles is 22. You get what you pay for.

That's one thing I agree with you on, Lad. I've been against trying to do football coaching on the cheap from the beginning. Bailiff is not worth anywhere near #22; and I'm not sure he's worth anywhere near #82 either. The reason is that nationally in the last of the two games most regular fans and football people will use to form their current opinion of Rice football, it's "yup, same ol' Rice--they stink at football."

That perception devastates all the good things JK, the BOT, Leebron and yes, even Coach Mesa himself have done here. We need a Head Football Coach who can Transform that national opinion and perception of Rice, and the facts show that bailiff just can't get the job done here, no matter how many chances he gets.

We now have a whole season to wait for another opportunity game. Yeah, we could still win CUSA, but nationally few will care. They'll just reaffirm how bad CUSA is if a Rice team that lost to Texas and got destroyed by Baylor can win it. Not fair, but very true.

Haven't we decided that Bailiff pretty much beats most Bottom 75 teams he plays? If so, doesn't that mean he would at least be worth near #75?

What reasons do you have that he is worse than #82?

Bailiff beats almost every team in the bottom quartile he plays.(that's the bottom 90+; not bottom 75). Because almost every single coach who is below #75 is relatively new in their tenure, and certainly have not stayed anywhere near as long as DB.

(09-27-2015 01:30 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 09:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 09:27 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  There appears to be as much thought and strategy goes into our game plans as one has in the old vibrating football game.

The same game plan against everyone, and hardly ever make in-game adjustments. Certainly makes it easy on the opposition scouting and coaching staff. We beat team we can out-physical and out-talent, and we lose badly to anyone the a pulse or an opposing coach who is not brain-dead.

I've said it before, I'll say it again-- DB is a really good character guy, a very good recruiter, an outstanding ambassador for the University...and a sub-par football coach, who is never going to get us over the hump and to the next level (which is Top 50 - 65 level). Are the Bailiff defenders going to continue to debate my contention that we've plateaued over the past 3+ years of "historically unprecedented success"? I dare you to give us even a shred of evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, a loss to Baylor says nothing about whether we're getting over the hump to the Top 50-65 level . . . either way.

Obviously, we don't know where Baylor will end the year in the rankings. Right now they are Top 5.

IF, and it is definitely an if, they finish the year Top 5, or even Top 10, then looking back over Rice's history, how far back do we have to go before we can claim a win over a Top 5 (end of year) program?

(Not talking a win over a team that was #5 and fell afterwards)

I'm not happy about today, but I'm guessing that Baylor would've convincingly won against 90%+ of the teams in the country today (including all of the Big 12 except for maybe TCU).

Right now, I'm wishing more that we could've had hindsight in one or two areas prior to the UT game more than anything (where we punted for starters).

Regardless, what any one game means isn't going to be clear until the end of the year.

I know where you stand on this Walt, and I'm not arguing for or against your point. Just observing that this specific game has nothing to do with that point.

One specific game? Baylor, LaTech, Marshall, Notre Dame, A&M....Rick, there's a pattern here-- we play any team ranked in the Top 65 (doesn't have to be Top 25) and we get obliterated and embarrassed. We cannot even compete against these teams under DB.

(09-27-2015 07:46 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 01:30 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 09:31 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2015 09:27 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  There appears to be as much thought and strategy goes into our game plans as one has in the old vibrating football game.

The same game plan against everyone, and hardly ever make in-game adjustments. Certainly makes it easy on the opposition scouting and coaching staff. We beat team we can out-physical and out-talent, and we lose badly to anyone the a pulse or an opposing coach who is not brain-dead.

I've said it before, I'll say it again-- DB is a really good character guy, a very good recruiter, an outstanding ambassador for the University...and a sub-par football coach, who is never going to get us over the hump and to the next level (which is Top 50 - 65 level). Are the Bailiff defenders going to continue to debate my contention that we've plateaued over the past 3+ years of "historically unprecedented success"? I dare you to give us even a shred of evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, a loss to Baylor says nothing about whether we're getting over the hump to the Top 50-65 level . . . either way.

Obviously, we don't know where Baylor will end the year in the rankings. Right now they are Top 5.

IF, and it is definitely an if, they finish the year Top 5, or even Top 10, then looking back over Rice's history, how far back do we have to go before we can claim a win over a Top 5 (end of year) program?

(Not talking a win over a team that was #5 and fell afterwards)

I'm not happy about today, but I'm guessing that Baylor would've convincingly won against 90%+ of the teams in the country today (including all of the Big 12 except for maybe TCU).

Right now, I'm wishing more that we could've had hindsight in one or two areas prior to the UT game more than anything (where we punted for starters).

Regardless, what any one game means isn't going to be clear until the end of the year.

I know where you stand on this Walt, and I'm not arguing for or against your point. Just observing that this specific game has nothing to do with that point.

One specific game? Baylor, LaTech, Marshall, Notre Dame, A&M....Rick, there's a pattern here-- we play any team ranked in the Top 65 (doesn't have to be Top 25) and we get obliterated and embarrassed. We cannot even compete against these teams under DB.

Didn't Bailiff just receive an extension recently? I'm not sure why we're getting all hot and bothered over this when Jod clearly is behind Bailiff and Bailiff behind Joe. I want to win too and we really better win next week to stay in the CUSA race picture but come on folks. We're not a top 5 to 10 team in any sport especially not football. if we're going to have a better year 3 than year 2 under this adminstration we gotta win next week though.

tweeted by a Baylor fan at our joint watch party in the ATL:



? LEFT—Rice fans at kickoff of Baylor game

? RIGHT—Rice fans after watching Baylor game