(10-26-2015 09:58 AM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

Ranfin, you are missing what I am saying. what part said satisfied to you?

I am saying that if we fire bailiff and hire the YHA, we have at best a tiny chance of hitting the big time. The YHA will be gone long before we hit the big time - either fired for failure or hired away for relative success, but when he goes, however he goes, he is not taking Rice with him and we will be back looking for the guy who can take us to the P5. The risk we run is that we not only lose the progress we have made, we become once again the Rice of the 70's. It's a long climb out of the swamp.

To put estimated numbers on it, maybe the odds are 50% we slide back to 1 and 2 win seasons, 49% we stay with 7-9 win seasons, and 1% we hit the jackpot. Some of you are quite willing to take the 50-1 odds. Me, been there, not willing to go back to the 70's on a blue sky promise. For those who see the odds as 0% loss/100% win, easy gamble. Actually, no gamble.

(10-26-2015 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am saying that if we fire bailiff and hire the YHA, we have at best a tiny chance of hitting the big time. The YHA will be gone long before we hit the big time - either fired for failure or hired away for relative success, but when he goes, however he goes, he is not taking Rice with him and we will be back looking for the guy who can take us to the P5. The risk we run is that we not only lose the progress we have made, we become once again the Rice of the 70's. It's a long climb out of the swamp.

We have no chance of making the big time now. Unless you somehow see otherwise?

1 win, 2 wins, 8 wins in C-USA isn't getting us anywhere.

(10-26-2015 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:58 AM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

Ranfin, you are missing what I am saying. what part said satisfied to you?

I am saying that if we fire bailiff and hire the YHA, we have at best a tiny chance of hitting the big time. The YHA will be gone long before we hit the big time - either fired for failure or hired away for relative success, but when he goes, however he goes, he is not taking Rice with him and we will be back looking for the guy who can take us to the P5. The risk we run is that we not only lose the progress we have made, we become once again the Rice of the 70's. It's a long climb out of the swamp.

To put estimated numbers on it, maybe the odds are 50% we slide back to 1 and 2 win seasons, 49% we stay with 7-9 win seasons, and 1% we hit the jackpot. Some of you are quite willing to take the 50-1 odds. Me, been there, not willing to go back to the 70's on a blue sky promise. For those who see the odds as 0% loss/100% win, easy gamble. Actually, no gamble.

I might dispute the odds a little bit but I think the biggest disagreement people on this board will have seems to be the bolded part. It IS a long climb from where we started.

Not sure that we're receding into irrelevance. Is that based on the conference we're in? Because even when we were in the SWC, we were not "relevant" in the big picture of college football. If anything, we're a little more relevant now, playing in post-season, winning a G5 conference, multiple 10-win seasons, producing a lot more NFL prospects than before, building the first new football facility in decades, etc. I don't see how we were more relevant in the 70's, 80's, or even 90's than now.

Attendance has never been good but it's been steadily going down since the SWC broke up and since the Texans arrived. There is no NFL team in Palo Alto. It isn't the 4th largest city in the country, with another college football team across town. Oh yeah, they also have rivals coming to town like USC and UCLA instead of UTSA and North Texas.

I don't see much of a correlation between student attendance and relevance, in Rice's case. If we won 10 games and won the conference, it would produce a minor increase in attendance, but the rest of the country would take note of who won conference USA. The question of what is relevant is another story, but I'll stick to my premise that we haven't been more relevant in the past, at least not that I can remember.

Stanford is #1 in athletics among all school, IIRC. Only since Harbaugh have they been a football power, but they have elite programs in almost all other sports. There's more of a sports culture in Stanford than at Rice. The aforementioned conference affiliation and success on the field make a big difference, obviously, but underlying all that is a commitment to athletics that is both easier and more evident at Stanford than at Rice. They are bigger, in a better conference, and more dedicated to athletics than Rice, for many reasons.

(10-26-2015 10:32 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:58 AM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

Ranfin, you are missing what I am saying. what part said satisfied to you?

I am saying that if we fire bailiff and hire the YHA, we have at best a tiny chance of hitting the big time. The YHA will be gone long before we hit the big time - either fired for failure or hired away for relative success, but when he goes, however he goes, he is not taking Rice with him and we will be back looking for the guy who can take us to the P5. The risk we run is that we not only lose the progress we have made, we become once again the Rice of the 70's. It's a long climb out of the swamp.

To put estimated numbers on it, maybe the odds are 50% we slide back to 1 and 2 win seasons, 49% we stay with 7-9 win seasons, and 1% we hit the jackpot. Some of you are quite willing to take the 50-1 odds. Me, been there, not willing to go back to the 70's on a blue sky promise. For those who see the odds as 0% loss/100% win, easy gamble. Actually, no gamble.

I might dispute the odds a little bit but I think the biggest disagreement people on this board will have seems to be the bolded part. It IS a long climb from where we started.

I guess the disagreement I have with a lot of people is the assumption that all we need to do is hire a YHA and hold on for dear life while he takes us straight to the NFL, er, Big12. I see it as a long shot maybe longer than the 1% I so generously gave it. They think we just need to divorce the old ball and chain and that supermodel will be clamoring to date us.

A lot of the YHA group were not here for the 70's and 80's, maybe that is why they are so willing to go back to them.

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

I think his plan is to let the person we have hired and paid good money to find quality coaches (like he did Rhodes) do so. I think the WORST plan would be to let 'public opinion' alone do so. Of course if that opinion is supported by people 'in the know', then that is something else... but we do it because HE thinks it's a good idea and not because WE think it's a good idea.


I agree with the 'marketing' part, but I'd say it somewhat differently (and have). I think Rice is all about 'recruiting'. No matter whom we get as a coach, unless out plan is to spend more than everyone else on coaches, I think it unreasonable to expect above average results on average resources... UNLESS you do something different.

The 'different' I'd do is in terms of recruiting. I understand that Texas is our bread and butter, but there are kids all over the country who want to play football at Stanford or Northwestern or Duke or Vandy and while they may be good enough, the scholarship limits or perhaps just the position they play doesn't suit those schools and they end up at a mid to low tier p5 football program at an 'okay' but not elite academic school.

The reason we don't do this is obvious... because there is one kid a year in North Carolina and Tennessee and California and Illinois whom this describes... and thus it is not a good use of our athletic resources.... BUT (and this is important to note) a) the 'learning curve' is far shorter because that kid has already decided that he values an education like Rice's, but he wasn't given that opportunity. Rather than the long sale, we're only there to offer an alternative to a mediocre educational opportunity at a football program that MIGHT be better, but immaterially so. As we so often argue, what difference does it really make if you're number 50 or 70? If you're going to a bowl because you're 4-0 OOC and 2-6 in a tough conference or you're 2-2 OOC and 6-2 in a weak one?

And the University should support this because we are signing THIS kid, who already is at least close to qualifying for a peer school (and WANTS that education) as opposed to perhaps having to take a chance on a more marginal student.

I realize there are other issues, especially w/r/t the NCAA... but because our mission is to sign the best STUDENT athletes possible... and increasing the 'n' increases the ability to find more high quality athletes who are also top notch students.. I think we need to find a way (within the rules) to accomplish this.

For starters, I'd find every kid who has Stanford or Duke or Vandy or Northwestern on their list and contact them. We want RICE to be their 'football fallback' to those schools and not for Ark or Missouri or Kansas, much less Fresno to be their academic fallback. Our argument should be that their opportunity to go pro from Rice is arguably as good or perhaps better (because you probably get to play more and will stand out more in CUSA than in the SEC) than from those schools... and that the academics are far superior.

(10-26-2015 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a thought on this whole student support issue. CDC and I discussed this several times, he was in complete agreement and started to make some changes in this direction, but left before moving very far on it. Ranger Rick was not interested. I have not had a chance to visit the issue with JK, but want to do so at some point, particularly since I am now coaching the women (we lost to UTSA Saturday morning, 22-0 in the rain, but they are the best team in our league and we started 8 rookies playing their first game, so I'm not too disappointed).

The idea is that one way to reinvigorate student interest is to push club sports and intramurals. Make club sports essentially equivalent to a D-III program, the way the Ivies do--and Stanford does. That was actually sort of implied by McKinsey in their discussion of the advantages of D-III. It's relatively cheap, and it would greatly expand the support base. Give club sports and intramurals participants a sense of ownership and participation in the athletic program. They will then support you while at Rice and after graduation. For example, on Saturday our team thought it would be fun to go to the football game and sit in the rain and watch (they were already wet and muddy), and they invited the UTSA players to join them, although I'm not sure how many of the latter did so.

There have been suggestions at times that Rice should have more of an Ivy League type of athletic program. What people may not realize is that truly doing so would require an increase in spending for non-revenue and club sports. I recall seeing Princeton women's rugby play Penn State for the national championship in Tampa in about 2000. Princeton had a pregame alumni event in a tent with about 200 attending (lots of folks retire from Wall Street to Florida), and they had about a 5-person coaching staff (including two spotting in the press box and talking to others with headsets down on the field) with student trainers/managers and medical personnel. Similar for Penn State, except for the alumni event. We don't support club sports that way.

This sounds like a good idea. It's a good way for the students to get to know one another as well. Anything that gets them involved in student life is a good thing. Make them feel as connected to the university as possible.

(10-26-2015 06:24 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a thought on this whole student support issue. CDC and I discussed this several times, he was in complete agreement and started to make some changes in this direction, but left before moving very far on it. Ranger Rick was not interested. I have not had a chance to visit the issue with JK, but want to do so at some point, particularly since I am now coaching the women (we lost to UTSA Saturday morning, 22-0 in the rain, but they are the best team in our league and we started 8 rookies playing their first game, so I'm not too disappointed).

The idea is that one way to reinvigorate student interest is to push club sports and intramurals. Make club sports essentially equivalent to a D-III program, the way the Ivies do--and Stanford does. That was actually sort of implied by McKinsey in their discussion of the advantages of D-III. It's relatively cheap, and it would greatly expand the support base. Give club sports and intramurals participants a sense of ownership and participation in the athletic program. They will then support you while at Rice and after graduation. For example, on Saturday our team thought it would be fun to go to the football game and sit in the rain and watch (they were already wet and muddy), and they invited the UTSA players to join them, although I'm not sure how many of the latter did so.

There have been suggestions at times that Rice should have more of an Ivy League type of athletic program. What people may not realize is that truly doing so would require an increase in spending for non-revenue and club sports. I recall seeing Princeton women's rugby play Penn State for the national championship in Tampa in about 2000. Princeton had a pregame alumni event in a tent with about 200 attending (lots of folks retire from Wall Street to Florida), and they had about a 5-person coaching staff (including two spotting in the press box and talking to others with headsets down on the field) with student trainers/managers and medical personnel. Similar for Penn State, except for the alumni event. We don't support club sports that way.

I think that is a good way to get students involved with the athletic program but from my experience a lot of the club players A) didn't care about going to football games or B) had their club games scheduled at the same time. I know men's rugby almost always had a conflict with football and most of those guys would have gone to the football games.

I'm not sure why we don't shut down the entire campus on gameday. Close the library. Close the servery. RAs shouldn't be hosting all day movie marathons like I know they did on Saturday (which probably had more students than our 25 person student section). We have to make game days an event. 99% of college campuses you absolutely can't avoid knowing there is a home game, but at Rice sometimes you wouldn't know unless the lights are on in the stadium.

You're absolutely right. Close everything down. Make it so that the only place students can eat is at the game. Be sure that there's nothing else to do that day but attend the game.
And I hope it's not true about some students not even knowing about a scheduled football game. That's sad. There's no excuse for that. Football is a big deal at most universities, especially in Texas. In the right environment, the excitement can be addictive! They are missing out if they don't get to feel that. The administration must find a way to get these students to football games. Invigorate them! Where's the school spirit? They need to be taking part just like all the other students around the nation.

(10-26-2015 12:06 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  You're absolutely right. Close everything down. Make it so that the only place students can eat is at the game. Be sure that there's nothing else to do that day but attend the game.
And I hope it's not true about some students not even knowing about a scheduled football game. That's sad. There's no excuse for that. Football is a big deal at most universities, especially in Texas. In the right environment, the excitement can be addictive! They are missing out if they don't get to feel that. The administration must find a way to get these students to football games. Invigorate them! Where's the school spirit? They need to be taking part just like all the other students around the nation.

Again, they did this when I was in school. 2006-2010. It does not go over well.

Most people would show up, eat the food, ***** and moan about the football team and program and how they don't give a damn and then leave. End result - angry students AND no attendance.

So, absolutely not. Its suicide.

I don't know what the problems are, but it's sad. That student section should be full of kids on gameday, no matter the opponent and no matter the time of day. Something is seriously wrong. There's absolutely no school spirit. My suspicion is that the problems are numerous, and that it's not just one or two things. The athletics culture at Rice is on life support. The students don't care anything about athletics competition.

(10-26-2015 12:33 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I don't know what the problems are, but it's sad. That student section should be full of kids on gameday, no matter the opponent and no matter the time of day. Something is seriously wrong. There's absolutely no school spirit. My suspicion is that the problems are numerous, and that it's not just one or two things. The athletics culture at Rice is on life support. The students don't care anything about athletics competition.

Why?

Everyone here wants it to be so, of course, however we may need to accept that times have changed. Students don't do things just because, especially when there are several other options.

Rice Football needs to find a way to re-engage students. Just being football is no longer enough. And expecting people to show up at 11 am to watch Middle Tennessee State? Simply out of question.

What is so frustrating about this board is that people keep saying "students should care" or that "we have gone to 3 straight bowls" and "we have a winning record" and what I am saying is that young alums and students don't care about this. And rather than wanting to change things to make the students care, we keep touting our "unprecedented success"

Can you blame them? If your time is limited would you rather go watch a dynamic MBB program or an anemic football program? I think WBB will also be exciting to watch probably until next year but I bet the energy will be there this year. Let's stay tuned.

(10-26-2015 12:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:33 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I don't know what the problems are, but it's sad. That student section should be full of kids on gameday, no matter the opponent and no matter the time of day. Something is seriously wrong. There's absolutely no school spirit. My suspicion is that the problems are numerous, and that it's not just one or two things. The athletics culture at Rice is on life support. The students don't care anything about athletics competition.

Why?

Everyone here wants it to be so, of course, however we may need to accept that times have changed. Students don't do things just because, especially when there are several other options.

Rice Football needs to find a way to re-engage students. Just being football is no longer enough. And expecting people to show up at 11 am to watch Middle Tennessee State? Simply out of question.

(10-26-2015 10:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think his plan is to let the person we have hired and paid good money to find quality coaches (like he did Rhodes) do so.

More precisely, I think his plan is hope and pray JK finds the person who can fulfill all his dreams, who will make Rice a perennial top25 team while still in CUSA, then leading us back to the honored position of P5 membership. and he will do so quickly. All that is required is to clear bailiff out of the way.

Good plan. Hope it works.

You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

(10-26-2015 01:46 PM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

I 'understand' these lines of thought even if I don't agree 100%.

The idea to some is that floating around in 125-75 is simply a death by 1000 cuts, so unless you see a plan and a CLEAR means to change the status quo, then the risk of 'door number 3' is not as bad.... especially if you're willing to sever that tie quickly as well. It's a reasoned, but potentially frantic attempt at self-preservation rather than a slow decline into the abyss. If you think we're 'on the edge' or 'heading in the right direction' or however else you want to describe it, then even a well-reasoned, frantic response seem unreasonable.

(10-26-2015 02:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:46 PM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

I 'understand' these lines of thought even if I don't agree 100%.

The idea to some is that floating around in 125-75 is simply a death by 1000 cuts, so unless you see a plan and a CLEAR means to change the status quo, then the risk of 'door number 3' is not as bad.... especially if you're willing to sever that tie quickly as well. It's a reasoned, but potentially frantic attempt at self-preservation rather than a slow decline into the abyss. If you think we're 'on the edge' or 'heading in the right direction' or however else you want to describe it, then even a well-reasoned, frantic response seem unreasonable.

I have been convinced since around 2000 or so that the plan from the north side of the campus has been death by starvation until they somehow figured out that maybe having a relevant sports program is helpful, but I worry it just may be too late.

(10-26-2015 12:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:33 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I don't know what the problems are, but it's sad. That student section should be full of kids on gameday, no matter the opponent and no matter the time of day. Something is seriously wrong. There's absolutely no school spirit. My suspicion is that the problems are numerous, and that it's not just one or two things. The athletics culture at Rice is on life support. The students don't care anything about athletics competition.

Why?

Everyone here wants it to be so, of course, however we may need to accept that times have changed. Students don't do things just because, especially when there are several other options.

Rice Football needs to find a way to re-engage students. Just being football is no longer enough. And expecting people to show up at 11 am to watch Middle Tennessee State? Simply out of question.

What is so frustrating about this board is that people keep saying "students should care" or that "we have gone to 3 straight bowls" and "we have a winning record" and what I am saying is that young alums and students don't care about this. And rather than wanting to change things to make the students care, we keep touting our "unprecedented success"

You know, we have this same lack of engagement with the University in general with the young alums. How many young alums do we see showing up to *any* alumni event? How often is Antarius the youngest alum at an event(even non-athletic ones)? Ant, you can answer that for yourself :)

We currently don't even have a young alumni affinity group(<10 years) in Houston because the folks who were driving it aged into the 10-20 year space and no one else took over. I think the University has only recently recognized this as a huge problem and is only now taking some steps to improve.

I think many of the issues we discuss here, like Owl69 noting the 50 years of AD neglect, are just the most visible signs of general University neglect(keeping Rice, Rice). I have seen signs of the administration waking up in the last couple of years, but like in athletics, we have a long ways to go to catch up to our peers.

(10-26-2015 12:38 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:33 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I don't know what the problems are, but it's sad. That student section should be full of kids on gameday, no matter the opponent and no matter the time of day. Something is seriously wrong. There's absolutely no school spirit. My suspicion is that the problems are numerous, and that it's not just one or two things. The athletics culture at Rice is on life support. The students don't care anything about athletics competition.

Why?

Everyone here wants it to be so, of course, however we may need to accept that times have changed. Students don't do things just because, especially when there are several other options.

Rice Football needs to find a way to re-engage students. Just being football is no longer enough. And expecting people to show up at 11 am to watch Middle Tennessee State? Simply out of question.

What is so frustrating about this board is that people keep saying "students should care" or that "we have gone to 3 straight bowls" and "we have a winning record" and what I am saying is that young alums and students don't care about this. And rather than wanting to change things to make the students care, we keep touting our "unprecedented success"

This is where there's a disconnect. Students should flock to games because it's a fun chance to unite with the rest of the student body in a common cause. The opponent shouldn't matter. All that matters is that Rice is playing. Nothing else. Sure, the 11AM kickoffs don't help, but that shouldn't be nearly enough to keep students away from the stadium in such large numbers. It must be the culture at Rice that causes this. There must be such a focus on academics that students don't care anything about athletic competition. Athletics needs to be promoted and pushed at Rice. All those students are missing out.

(10-26-2015 02:47 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  This is where there's a disconnect. Students should flock to games because it's a [b]fun chance to unite with the rest of the student body in a common cause. The opponent shouldn't matter. All that matters is that Rice is playing. Nothing else.[/b] Sure, the 11AM kickoffs don't help, but that shouldn't be nearly enough to keep students away from the stadium in such large numbers. It must be the culture at Rice that causes this. There must be such a focus on academics that students don't care anything about athletic competition. Athletics needs to be promoted and pushed at Rice. All those students are missing out.

What are you basing this on? Should this, should that... is this based on your experience a long time ago? It is an antiquated model we keep championing.

People care about athletics. Just not Rice. if you grew up watching OU play due to your parents, where you go tailgate and see a 100 thousand people get excited and then come to Rice, why would you care to watch Rice play? Its far more fun to relax in your room, eat breakfast, drink beer and watch the Top 25 play high quality football in HD.

Should or should not is as irrelevant as our Bowl wins. The question is do they and if not, can they be interested.

(10-26-2015 02:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 01:46 PM)ranfin Wrote:  You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

I 'understand' these lines of thought even if I don't agree 100%.

The idea to some is that floating around in 125-75 is simply a death by 1000 cuts, so unless you see a plan and a CLEAR means to change the status quo, then the risk of 'door number 3' is not as bad.... especially if you're willing to sever that tie quickly as well. It's a reasoned, but potentially frantic attempt at self-preservation rather than a slow decline into the abyss. If you think we're 'on the edge' or 'heading in the right direction' or however else you want to describe it, then even a well-reasoned, frantic response seem unreasonable.

No one is happy with the 75-125 range, and definitely not the 100-125 range. There is evidence, and Bailiff has done it, that we can get in the 50-75 range, with maybe the brief foray into sub-50.

I personally think that's a progressive march, and that progress has been 'visible' since 2012. I also, personally, think recruiting responds to events and our improvement, but that there is a 3 to 5 year lag as the recruits become upper classmen and start to have increased game impact.

I've thought that for some time, pre-Bailiff, based on the historic cycles Rice went through in the late 40's and 50's.

I see our current position as a period of rebuilding during which we seem to be sustaining a lot of injuries. Hence, if I can believe the report I saw posted here from someone who allegedly saw this on a broadcast of the Army game . . . . that we have the second most freshmen playing this year in Div. 1 which would support this, we were due for a 1950's Neelian era dip in record this year.

If 2012-13 represented the lag from the recruiting uptick we would expect to see for a year or two following 2008 . . .

Then you'd think we'd see a potential upswing in performance during 2016-2018 as a result of any improvements in the overall recruiting as a result of our improved performance in 2012-2014.

If our 'rebuild year' is a winning season, etc, all the better.

Others may not buy the 'success builds more success' theory, but I do.

I guess my point is that some of us don't believe the upside to Bailiff as coach is bouncing between 75 and 125.

And we're not satisfied with 100+.