(09-28-2015 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

Once again, since I hate hollow talking points and very vague statements, I took a look at the box score. Turns out, a lot of these questions we raise can be answered if we just dig a little bit.

Lamar competed in the first half better because of 3 Baylor TOs in the first half (2 INTs and 1 fumble) and none for Lamar. But Baylor still scored 35 pts to Lamar's 21.

Following the first half, Baylor threw one more INT, but Lamar turned it over twice and the game ended 66-31.

And SMU did well in the first half because they were able to move the ball and grind down the clock while scoring. SMU had two drives that totaled about 12 minutes and both esulted in TDs. Their other drives were 8 secs (TD), 2:46 (punt), 3:40 (Int) and 2:38 (end of half). There were INTs by both teams in the first half.

After the first half, while SMU still held onto the ball, they failed to score and had 5 punts in a row followed by an INT.

It seems like in the SMU game, Baylor was able to adjust to SMU's strategy and demolish them in the second half.

Now, this has nothing to do with our performance, but it helps shed a little light into how SMU and Lamar were able to keep things close in the first half.

You do realize that turnovers are often as much the result of aggressive defensive play as mistakes made by the offense?

Fairly obvious to me that Baylor didn't play nearly as well against Lamar as they did against Rice. Not at all obvious that Lamar should get the credit for that. Baylor started the Lamar game flat and mistake-prone.

(09-28-2015 08:38 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

Once again, since I hate hollow talking points and very vague statements, I took a look at the box score. Turns out, a lot of these questions we raise can be answered if we just dig a little bit.

Lamar competed in the first half better because of 3 Baylor TOs in the first half (2 INTs and 1 fumble) and none for Lamar. But Baylor still scored 35 pts to Lamar's 21.

Following the first half, Baylor threw one more INT, but Lamar turned it over twice and the game ended 66-31.

And SMU did well in the first half because they were able to move the ball and grind down the clock while scoring. SMU had two drives that totaled about 12 minutes and both esulted in TDs. Their other drives were 8 secs (TD), 2:46 (punt), 3:40 (Int) and 2:38 (end of half). There were INTs by both teams in the first half.

After the first half, while SMU still held onto the ball, they failed to score and had 5 punts in a row followed by an INT.

It seems like in the SMU game, Baylor was able to adjust to SMU's strategy and demolish them in the second half.

Now, this has nothing to do with our performance, but it helps shed a little light into how SMU and Lamar were able to keep things close in the first half.

You do realize that turnovers are often as much the result of aggressive defensive play as mistakes made by the offense?

Did I suggest one way or the other? If you can point out where I did, I'll give you a prize and tell you which other accounts I use on The Parliament! Hehe.

(09-28-2015 08:44 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Fairly obvious to me that Baylor didn't play nearly as well against Lamar as they did against Rice. Not at all obvious that Lamar should get the credit for that. Baylor started the Lamar game flat and mistake-prone.

We can say that all we want but to someone outside of Rice the perception is Lamar football is better and that is who we need to sell tickets to.

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

Walt, I'm really not sure what you're disagreeing with here.

I said that we were competitive with Texas, and could have possibly beaten them, but our punt team mistakes and unnecessary turnovers took us out of the game. Do you disagree?

I said that Baylor seems to be a Top 5 team right now (and have allowed that until the end of the year we won't know for sure). Do you disagree?

YOU have said that you don't expect us to be competitive against a Top 10 team, but you think we should be competitive against Top 25-50 and capable of beating Top 50s.

Does that differ from my post?

My interpretation of what Owl69/70/75 wrote was that we were not going to beat either Texas or Baylor. I agreed with him about Baylor, and said I was not so sure about Texas.

Do you think that if we eliminated the TD-turnover and reduced the punt return yards from 160 plus to 20 or less that we were in the Texas game (given TOP and yardage totals, not to mention 3rd and 4th down conversions rates), yes or no?

I'm really not sure where you disagree with me, other than you seem to think it's all Bailiff's fault.

(09-28-2015 08:52 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:44 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Fairly obvious to me that Baylor didn't play nearly as well against Lamar as they did against Rice. Not at all obvious that Lamar should get the credit for that. Baylor started the Lamar game flat and mistake-prone.

We can say that all we want but to someone outside of Rice the perception is Lamar football is better and that is who we need to sell tickets to.

Nah. If Rice were playing Lamar this weekend Rice would be favored.

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:50 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Why did we do worse than Lamar and SMU did against Baylor? Baylor needed statement wins against them too to move up for the playoff. Lamar and SMU were likely big underdogs too.

One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 02:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thought. We have this chronic weakness at the back of our secondary, which is the worst possible place to have a problem against Baylor's speed.

SMU is bad defensively, but what I've seen in parts of 3 of their games is more getting pushed around up front than getting burned deep. Not familiar with Lamar, so don't know if they are similar.

But there's a good chance that a big part of it could be matchups. We simply have the worst possible weakness to go up against Baylor.

Not sure if that excuses doing worse than either SMU or Lamar, but I think it's a factor. It's also a major reason why I say we aren't good enough for a signature win. You can't beat a good team when you can't stop the big play, really no matter how good or bad you are elsewhere.

Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk in replacing Bailiff. Could we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk is replacing Bailiff. Good we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

I understand your position clearly. Your are saying the building is burning, so might as well jump off the roof and hope for the best. I can understand that. I just don't see a "far better chance of upside" by changing coaches every three years or so. I agree this may be our last chance. I also think a return to 1-11 seasons will kill those chances. so will we be like southern Miss, and make the change and go into the dumpster? You see little chance of that, I see a lot. If our window is 2-5 years, we have to hit a home run. No time for singles, which is what Bailiff is doing anyway.

Heck, Butch and Sundance survived their big leap, maybe we will too. But before I join the jumpers, I want a name other than
Somebody Else. Once we fire Bailiff, we need to get the miracle worker. The one who will have us in the top 25 next year or the year after, and climbing. I use Kendall Briles as an example, as he is a top assistant on a top team. Do you think he can come in at Rice, recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star freshmen, and tweak our offense to give us an extra 21 points/game? why or why not? Because he does it at Baylor?



I guess our viewpoints at just different. You see a change as no risk, I see it as trading the bird in the hand for two in the bush.

(09-28-2015 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk is replacing Bailiff. Good we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

I understand your position clearly. Your are saying the building is burning, so might as well jump off the roof and hope for the best. I can understand that. I just don't see a "far better chance of upside" by changing coaches every three years or so. I agree this may be our last chance. I also think a return to 1-11 seasons will kill those chances. so will we be like southern Miss, and make the change and go into the dumpster? You see little chance of that, I see a lot. If our window is 2-5 years, we have to hit a home run. No time for singles, which is what Bailiff is doing anyway.

Heck, Butch and Sundance survived their big leap, maybe we will too. But before I join the jumpers, I want a name other than
Somebody Else. Once we fire Bailiff, we need to get the miracle worker. The one who will have us in the top 25 next year or the year after, and climbing. I use Kendall Briles as an example, as he is a top assistant on a top team. Do you think he can come in at Rice, recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star freshmen, and tweak our offense to give us an extra 21 points/game? why or why not? Because he does it at Baylor?



I guess our viewpoints at just different. You see a change as no risk, I see it as trading the bird in the hand for two in the bush.

There is always risk performance and record-wise in a change, but I see very little risk in a change with regards to positioning ourselves in the best light for conference realignment (since we pretty much know that DB will not get us to where we want and need to be). Call it "urgency", call it "fire in the belly", call it in-game coachng...Bailiff does not have it. We don't need a miracle worker; rather, we need a coach who get more out of his players (through motivation, scouting, in-game adjustments, game planning for each opponent, etc.).

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:26 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-27-2015 03:14 PM)Antarius Wrote:  Thats likely a big factor. The other one is our propensity for meltdowns against name teams. In the last 9 years we end up looking like a JV team as soon as we play a big name or a very good team.

We routinely underperform even to our standards against name P5. Heck, if we played the way we did against Fresno or Marshall against UT and Baylor we would have won the first one and not embarassed ourselves in the second.

Yes, I think if we cut out 120 yards in punt returns against UT, and don't give them a TD on a turnover, we might've won.

Against Baylor? They are not a 'name' team or a 'good' team. Until proven otherwise, and it could happen, they are a Top 5 team. Their team speed and athleticism is in another league.

Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk in replacing Bailiff. Could we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

OK, if you see us having a 2-5 year window, I see where you get your position. You're welcome to that I guess.

It took TCU longer. Still hasn't happened for Boise (or BYU which has a pretty decent football pedigree).

I think P5 status is probably a 10 to 15 year project, if it happens at all, and it probably involves an even greater increase in our enrollment.

under that scenario, the risk of going backward is significant. I'd think we'd be better off on the path we're on AND getting into the NCAA's in basketball.

I don't see a realistic path to P5 in 2 to 5 years. I don't think we have the alumni base, and the makeup of our student body has changed over the decades in a way that doesn't lend itself to produce more supporters like you or me, at least not at an increasing rate. But that's just an opinion.

But I don't begrudge you your opinion. And before being too harsh with my opinion, I at least acknowledge their COULD be a path to P5 status. I think you'd find a lot of folks that are less optimistic than me.

(09-28-2015 09:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:19 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Then how and why did SMU and Lamar better compete against Baylor, and how does this explain the similar embarrassments against Marshall and LaTech last year (a LaTech team that lost at home to Northwestern State) and just barely survived games against lowly USM and UTEP. You're continued excuses are getting really old Rick. Blame anyone and anything, BUT the coaching staff.

On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk is replacing Bailiff. Good we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

I understand your position clearly. Your are saying the building is burning, so might as well jump off the roof and hope for the best. I can understand that. I just don't see a "far better chance of upside" by changing coaches every three years or so. I agree this may be our last chance. I also think a return to 1-11 seasons will kill those chances. so will we be like southern Miss, and make the change and go into the dumpster? You see little chance of that, I see a lot. If our window is 2-5 years, we have to hit a home run. No time for singles, which is what Bailiff is doing anyway.

Heck, Butch and Sundance survived their big leap, maybe we will too. But before I join the jumpers, I want a name other than
Somebody Else. Once we fire Bailiff, we need to get the miracle worker. The one who will have us in the top 25 next year or the year after, and climbing. I use Kendall Briles as an example, as he is a top assistant on a top team. Do you think he can come in at Rice, recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star freshmen, and tweak our offense to give us an extra 21 points/game? why or why not? Because he does it at Baylor?



I guess our viewpoints at just different. You see a change as no risk, I see it as trading the bird in the hand for two in the bush.

There is always risk performance and record-wise in a change, but I see very little risk in a change with regards to positioning ourselves in the best light for conference realignment (since we pretty much know that DB will not get us to where we want and need to be). Call it "urgency", call it "fire in the belly", call it in-game coachng...Bailiff does not have it. We don't need a miracle worker; rather, we need a coach who get more out of his players (through motivation, scouting, in-game adjustments, game planning for each opponent, etc.).

If you see a top25 ranking as a prerequisite for your goals, I guess there is no difference between a top60 ranking and 120+ ranking. I see the top60 as a step on the way to better rankings. And although I agree that if we are to have any shot at a P5, it had better be soon, I am not convinced there IS any shot. It may just be an El Dorado that we can never never reach.

If we take your gamble and fail, then(IMO) rice football is done. Finis. Kaput. In any way, shape, or form. Big stakes, and your assurances that there is no downside, nothing to lose, do not reassure me at all. Here we are arguing over whether rice will win 7, 8, 9, or 10 games this year and we want to risk losing it all on an unknown? I gamble, but I analyze the risk and the reward before I push my chips out there.
Or invest my money. I see a change as high risk, maybe high reward, maybe not. But as I said, if JK wants to do that, I will back him.

As for Rice and Lamar, the only people who care about that are Rice and Lamar alums. Nobody else is making that connection.

(09-28-2015 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  On any given Saturday...

We have talked a lot about how the transitive property doesn't work in athletics. LaTech was defined more by their season than one game, and Rice should be too. I guess you think Northwestern State would beat us by 48 or so. But it just doesn't work that way.

I think the other thing that doesn't make sense is the presumption that the ONLY thing that would explain everything is the coaching staff, that all things are equal save coaching. Football is not a controlled experiment where all variables but one are held constant. I expressed my belief that had we exchanged coaching staffs for the game yesterday, we would still have lost.

If I believed all we needed was NotBailiff at the helm, I would be leading the parade. But whether we hire Stoops, Briles, Patterson, or Rockne, I don't expect immediate improvement or even eventual Top10 or NCs. It's not like you can change just the spark plugs and suddenly have a Lamborghini.

Just out of curiosity, who is the miraclemaker you have in mind, or will we just get a generic miracle man?

I am willing to gamble on a lot of things, but I don't see much upside to an AnybodyButBailiff policy. I think when you go all in you need to have the odds on your side. Show me a better bet than DB, and I will move my chips to that side. It seems to me that all the possible replacements are either unknowns or very unlikely.

Nine years ago, I was very disappointed in the choice of Bailiff. I wanted Coker. A proven name. Today, would we exchange staffs with UTSA? I would not.

maybe a different coach would improve our record. Maybe not, Maybe a new guy would make all the fans happy and bring in giant crowds to ooh and aah when he calls plays. maybe not. I understand the guys who want to put all our chips on double zero, and I understand those who want to put that money into a CD. I really fall somewhere in the middle on this, but I understand also, if I'm not with ya, I'm agin ya.

In any case, we might as well be two butterflies arguing over whether we want rain today. If JK wants to keep him, I'll support JK in that decision. If JK wants to fire him, I'll support JK in that decision. The king is dead, long live the king.

And if we fire or lose JK...same thing.

JMHO

Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk is replacing Bailiff. Good we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

I understand your position clearly. Your are saying the building is burning, so might as well jump off the roof and hope for the best. I can understand that. I just don't see a "far better chance of upside" by changing coaches every three years or so. I agree this may be our last chance. I also think a return to 1-11 seasons will kill those chances. so will we be like southern Miss, and make the change and go into the dumpster? You see little chance of that, I see a lot. If our window is 2-5 years, we have to hit a home run. No time for singles, which is what Bailiff is doing anyway.

Heck, Butch and Sundance survived their big leap, maybe we will too. But before I join the jumpers, I want a name other than
Somebody Else. Once we fire Bailiff, we need to get the miracle worker. The one who will have us in the top 25 next year or the year after, and climbing. I use Kendall Briles as an example, as he is a top assistant on a top team. Do you think he can come in at Rice, recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star freshmen, and tweak our offense to give us an extra 21 points/game? why or why not? Because he does it at Baylor?



I guess our viewpoints at just different. You see a change as no risk, I see it as trading the bird in the hand for two in the bush.

There is always risk performance and record-wise in a change, but I see very little risk in a change with regards to positioning ourselves in the best light for conference realignment (since we pretty much know that DB will not get us to where we want and need to be). Call it "urgency", call it "fire in the belly", call it in-game coachng...Bailiff does not have it. We don't need a miracle worker; rather, we need a coach who get more out of his players (through motivation, scouting, in-game adjustments, game planning for each opponent, etc.).

If you see a top25 ranking as a prerequisite for your goals, I guess there is no difference between a top60 ranking and 120+ ranking. I see the top60 as a step on the way to better rankings. And although I agree that if we are to have any shot at a P5, it had better be soon, I am not convinced there IS any shot. It may just be an El Dorado that we can never never reach.

If we take your gamble and fail, then(IMO) rice football is done. Finis. Kaput. In any way, shape, or form. Big stakes, and your assurances that there is no downside, nothing to lose, do not reassure me at all. Here we are arguing over whether rice will win 7, 8, 9, or 10 games this year and we want to risk losing it all on an unknown? I gamble, but I analyze the risk and the reward before I push my chips out there.
Or invest my money. I see a change as high risk, maybe high reward, maybe not. But as I said, if JK wants to do that, I will back him.

As for Rice and Lamar, the only people who care about that are Rice and Lamar alums. Nobody else is making that connection.

Geez, you're making it sound like Bailiff is some great coach. He is anything but. He's a very high character guy and strong recruiter...but he's a lousy football coach. Yes, below average. I have a little more faith in JK that he'll hire a capable and promising replacement should he decide to do so. Given our weak conference, I have a very hard time seeing us returning to 1-11, 2-10 type seasons at any point in the future.

Walt, maybe when you and I were disagreeing earlier about the quality of Bailiff as a coach, we were disagreeing because of what each of us defined as a coach. When I hear coach, I think of it very holistically, like he is the CEO of the team. He is responsible for player personnel, coaching personnel, team moral, team outreach, player retention/graduation, in-game decisions, preparation, etc. So when I look at Bailiff holistically, as in, when I look at his as a coach, I think he is average at worst.

It seems like your view of the word coach is much narrower and only entails the in-game decisions/preparation. If so, I don't know if I call him lousy, but I wouldn't argue that he is below average. I feel like there are plenty of other coaches who could get more out of his players than Bailiff does. But this one knock doesn't make me think he is a below average coach because he has such significant strengths in other areas.

(09-28-2015 10:38 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:20 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:48 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 09:15 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Buddy, we've had this debate/discussion numerous times in the past. I'll give you the short version of my position-- IMO, Bailiff has proven beyond a shadow of doubt that he cannot take us to the next level. He's brought us to a certain level of respectability such that we can now usually beat teams in the bottom quartile of the FBS division, but we consistently fail to even compete against teams even slightly better than us. Consequently, if as an Athletic Department and University we feel it is important that our football program takes things a step further-- at least being a Top 50 - 65 level program, which is imminently realistic, IMO-- then there is very little risk is replacing Bailiff. Good we conceivably perform worse than we have the past 3 years? Sure, (1) but I'm not sure how likely that would be, and (2) even if we did I don't think it would adversely change the national perception of Rice football (which has not changed much for the better under Bailiff). I see a far greater chance for upside, than downside with such a move...and don't see much negative even if the downside occurs. This may be our one last chance-- over the next 2 - 5 years-- to get back into a P5 conference. Given how important that is to us and ALL of sports programs (not to mention our national reputation and ranking as a university), I say roll the dice!

I understand your position clearly. Your are saying the building is burning, so might as well jump off the roof and hope for the best. I can understand that. I just don't see a "far better chance of upside" by changing coaches every three years or so. I agree this may be our last chance. I also think a return to 1-11 seasons will kill those chances. so will we be like southern Miss, and make the change and go into the dumpster? You see little chance of that, I see a lot. If our window is 2-5 years, we have to hit a home run. No time for singles, which is what Bailiff is doing anyway.

Heck, Butch and Sundance survived their big leap, maybe we will too. But before I join the jumpers, I want a name other than
Somebody Else. Once we fire Bailiff, we need to get the miracle worker. The one who will have us in the top 25 next year or the year after, and climbing. I use Kendall Briles as an example, as he is a top assistant on a top team. Do you think he can come in at Rice, recruit a bunch of 4 and 5 star freshmen, and tweak our offense to give us an extra 21 points/game? why or why not? Because he does it at Baylor?



I guess our viewpoints at just different. You see a change as no risk, I see it as trading the bird in the hand for two in the bush.

There is always risk performance and record-wise in a change, but I see very little risk in a change with regards to positioning ourselves in the best light for conference realignment (since we pretty much know that DB will not get us to where we want and need to be). Call it "urgency", call it "fire in the belly", call it in-game coachng...Bailiff does not have it. We don't need a miracle worker; rather, we need a coach who get more out of his players (through motivation, scouting, in-game adjustments, game planning for each opponent, etc.).

If you see a top25 ranking as a prerequisite for your goals, I guess there is no difference between a top60 ranking and 120+ ranking. I see the top60 as a step on the way to better rankings. And although I agree that if we are to have any shot at a P5, it had better be soon, I am not convinced there IS any shot. It may just be an El Dorado that we can never never reach.

If we take your gamble and fail, then(IMO) rice football is done. Finis. Kaput. In any way, shape, or form. Big stakes, and your assurances that there is no downside, nothing to lose, do not reassure me at all. Here we are arguing over whether rice will win 7, 8, 9, or 10 games this year and we want to risk losing it all on an unknown? I gamble, but I analyze the risk and the reward before I push my chips out there.
Or invest my money. I see a change as high risk, maybe high reward, maybe not. But as I said, if JK wants to do that, I will back him.

As for Rice and Lamar, the only people who care about that are Rice and Lamar alums. Nobody else is making that connection.

Geez, you're making it sound like Bailiff is some great coach. He is anything but. He's a very high character guy and strong recruiter...but he's a lousy football coach. Yes, below average. I have a little more faith in JK that he'll hire a capable and promising replacement should he decide to do so. Given our weak conference, I have a very hard time seeing us returning to 1-11, 2-10 type seasons at any point in the future.

I expect that about 100% of Southern Miss fans would disagree with that assessment. They dropped from 12-1 and conference champions to 0-for-23 over the next two seasons with a coaching change.

(09-28-2015 08:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Do you think that if we eliminated the TD-turnover and reduced the punt return yards from 160 plus to 20 or less that we were in the Texas game (given TOP and yardage totals, not to mention 3rd and 4th down conversions rates), yes or no?

But the problem is that we can't eliminate those things, because that's who we are and what we do. We need to change that about ourselves.

(09-28-2015 10:56 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I expect that about 100% of Southern Miss fans would disagree with that assessment. They dropped from 12-1 and conference champions to 0-for-23 over the next two seasons with a coaching change.

Fedora left. Big difference.

The funny part is, this is exactly the same argument that I got on Parliament when I advocated for kicking Braun to the curb in 2013 and was unhappy about his performance and extension. Now we have Rhoades, and sure it is a gamble, but its got a far higher upside. If we are satisfied with getting by, then sure, the risk isn't worth it. I'm not.

(09-28-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Do you think that if we eliminated the TD-turnover and reduced the punt return yards from 160 plus to 20 or less that we were in the Texas game (given TOP and yardage totals, not to mention 3rd and 4th down conversions rates), yes or no?

But the problem is that we can't eliminate those things, because that's who we are and what we do. We need to change that about ourselves.

I think it varies week to week and opponent to opponent. Didn't DJ have very few turnovers last year? And I thought our punt teams improved the last 2 weeks?

(09-28-2015 11:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 08:52 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Do you think that if we eliminated the TD-turnover and reduced the punt return yards from 160 plus to 20 or less that we were in the Texas game (given TOP and yardage totals, not to mention 3rd and 4th down conversions rates), yes or no?

But the problem is that we can't eliminate those things, because that's who we are and what we do. We need to change that about ourselves.

I think it varies week to week and opponent to opponent. Didn't DJ have very few turnovers last year? And I thought our punt teams improved the last 2 weeks?

I think Owl69's point is that we cannot and have not shown the ability to play mistake free ball (or as close as possible). Sure some weeks are better than others, but even teams like the Jacksonville Jaguars go weeks without a turnover. Doesn't mean that as a team, they play good, solid mistake free ball.

(09-28-2015 08:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Did I suggest one way or the other? If you can point out where I did, I'll give you a prize and tell you which other accounts I use on The Parliament! Hehe.

RiceLad15, you and I are sharing a brain lately and this post made me laugh because I was literally about to compliment one of your posts and joke that people were about to start accusing us of being the same person.

(09-28-2015 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Once again, since I hate hollow talking points and very vague statements, I took a look at the box score. Turns out, a lot of these questions we raise can be answered if we just dig a little bit.

Lamar competed in the first half better because of 3 Baylor TOs in the first half (2 INTs and 1 fumble) and none for Lamar. But Baylor still scored 35 pts to Lamar's 21.

Following the first half, Baylor threw one more INT, but Lamar turned it over twice and the game ended 66-31.

And SMU did well in the first half because they were able to move the ball and grind down the clock while scoring. SMU had two drives that totaled about 12 minutes and both esulted in TDs. Their other drives were 8 secs (TD), 2:46 (punt), 3:40 (Int) and 2:38 (end of half). There were INTs by both teams in the first half.

After the first half, while SMU still held onto the ball, they failed to score and had 5 punts in a row followed by an INT.

It seems like in the SMU game, Baylor was able to adjust to SMU's strategy and demolish them in the second half.

Now, this has nothing to do with our performance, but it helps shed a little light into how SMU and Lamar were able to keep things close in the first half.

Yes to this. Baylor played their best game of the season (so far). Their coaching staff is much better and their players are much more athletic. That doesn't excuse Rice's performance, but its silly to pretend like Baylor performed the exact same in all three of their games and the only variable that changed was their opponent.

(09-28-2015 10:38 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Geez, you're making it sound like Bailiff is some great coach. He is anything but. He's a very high character guy and strong recruiter...but he's a lousy football coach. Yes, below average. I have a little more faith in JK that he'll hire a capable and promising replacement should he decide to do so. Given our weak conference, I have a very hard time seeing us returning to 1-11, 2-10 type seasons at any point in the future.

(09-28-2015 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Walt, maybe when you and I were disagreeing earlier about the quality of Bailiff as a coach, we were disagreeing because of what each of us defined as a coach. When I hear coach, I think of it very holistically, like he is the CEO of the team. He is responsible for player personnel, coaching personnel, team moral, team outreach, player retention/graduation, in-game decisions, preparation, etc. So when I look at Bailiff holistically, as in, when I look at his as a coach, I think he is average at worst.

It seems like your view of the word coach is much narrower and only entails the in-game decisions/preparation. If so, I don't know if I call him lousy, but I wouldn't argue that he is below average. I feel like there are plenty of other coaches who could get more out of his players than Bailiff does. But this one knock doesn't make me think he is a below average coach because he has such significant strengths in other areas.

Walt, I repeat a question I asked in the Baylor post-game thread:

(09-27-2015 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote:  For the people calling for Bailiff's head, what percentile do you rank him in terms of FBS coaches? What percentile do you rank the resources he has at his disposal (including academics limiting recruiting)? Honest questions.

I am honestly curious. Do you believe Bailiff has below-average resources by FBS standards? Do you believe he is getting average results? If yes to both of those, then how is Coach Bailiff a "lousy football coach"? I think the answer to both of those is yes, and I do not understand how someone as smart as you can believe a lousy coach who turns below-average resources into average results is "lousy." I don't think he's a great football coach. But lousy? He looked lousy in 2007, 2009, and 2010. Maybe even up through the 2012 Memphis game. But the results since then have been pretty average, relative to all of FBS.

Another way to get to the same point. How many G5 football teams would trade their results the last 4 years for Rice's results? I would bet more than half.