(11-16-2015 11:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, if it doesn't happen this week, and JK is still mulling it over, I presume a lot of y'all will be rooting (quietly in your hearts} for UTSA to beat us big and finish the job.

This is a disgusting tactic on your part.

Tactic? what contest is we engaging in?

IMO, it is disgusting that some will feel that equivocation in their hearts, but realistic. Maybe it will just be a big silver lining to a small dark cloud. But if we win, the spectre of bailiff keeping his job by winning out arises. It's possible that the last two(3?) games are meaningless, the die is cast. But also possible JK is teetering. If so, some will want the push to come in a certain direction.

I am glad you are among those who will be happy if Bailiff finishes 6-6 and keeps his job.

Personally, as I have said for the last 4 or so years here, fire him or keep him, I will support the Rice coach and the Rice team.

Go Rice. Beat UTSA!

I hope that we end up 7-6 and Bailiff retires or moves on to his next endeavor on an up note. And equally or more important I want this set of seniors to go out winning. This can't be the way they wanted their final year to go, and they've given a lot to the program and the university.

Good for you. I can agree with this 100%.

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

You think the firing is certain? I'll believe it when the press conference is called. It would be very unlike Rice (and a welcome 180).

The assistants are loyal to DB because he has retained them when other coaches would have cleaned house.

(11-16-2015 11:14 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:06 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  I will be rooting for us to finish at .500 by beating both UTSA and Charlotte. If that means we will get a Podunk Bowl, so be it. It will help the program. But in no way should this change the decision re Bailiff. Beating bottom feeders alone is not enough.

Same here. And I noted much earlier in this season of our discontent that UH fired Tony Levine after he went 7-5 and won his bowl game, because that just wasn't good enough for where the Cougars wanted to take their football program.

Making a change after a 6-6 season sends a positive message about our commitment to football excellence, in my opinion.

Again, Levine was fired before the bowl game...

(11-16-2015 11:06 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, if it doesn't happen this week, and JK is still mulling it over, I presume a lot of y'all will be rooting (quietly in your hearts} for UTSA to beat us big and finish the job.

This is a disgusting tactic on your part.

I will be rooting for us to finish at .500 by beating both UTSA and Charlotte. If that means we will get a Podunk Bowl, so be it. It will help the program. But in no way should this change the decision re Bailiff. Beating bottom feeders alone is not enough.

Completely agree. As an extension of the thread regarding whether or not to turn down a bowl, I would think we would all also be in favor of Rice finishing 2-0 to make a bowl, and winning said bowl. However, I'm not really sure that said outcome really alters my opinion regarding Bailiff - this year is already a step back from last year, which was a large step back from the year before.

(11-16-2015 11:24 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:09 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

Isn't that what happened with the Rhoades hire? I wonder if JK is doing his homework now on football coaching candidates. Wasn't JK also able to negotiate some of the Braun contract buyout in kind of a soft landing for everyone involved?

Yes, and yes. As for RiceLad's comments-- good grief, do you really think DB is going to be in the dark on this? Or do you honestly believe Braun actually resigned (as was the official, public words) as opposed to being told he was not going to be retained? DB is already a lame duck, whether he coaches out the season or not. The players have certainly quit on him.

I took your comment to mean that we did not tell Bailiff he was not being retained, since you specifically stated that the search start quietly and he not get the ax until after the season.

There is a big difference, IMO, between seeing the writing on the wall but not having anything happen behind your back, or being told you will not be retained and aware that your employer is looking for other coaches, as compared to your employer going behind your back and not having the decency to tell you that you will be fired to your face.

Regarding Braun, I don't think we started the search before Braun knew he was done, via a communication from JK.

(11-16-2015 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:19 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, if it doesn't happen this week, and JK is still mulling it over, I presume a lot of y'all will be rooting (quietly in your hearts} for UTSA to beat us big and finish the job.

This is a disgusting tactic on your part.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as disgusting but it definitely felt a little bit patronizing and condescending.

Nobody yet has said it was inaccurate.

You claim to know what people are thinking, which means you know full well that it's an unproveable assumption on your part - so of course it can't be refuted. Then, you imply your baseless accusation has some merit because nobody took the trouble to deny it - also disgusting.

(11-16-2015 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:24 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:09 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

Isn't that what happened with the Rhoades hire? I wonder if JK is doing his homework now on football coaching candidates. Wasn't JK also able to negotiate some of the Braun contract buyout in kind of a soft landing for everyone involved?

Yes, and yes. As for RiceLad's comments-- good grief, do you really think DB is going to be in the dark on this? Or do you honestly believe Braun actually resigned (as was the official, public words) as opposed to being told he was not going to be retained? DB is already a lame duck, whether he coaches out the season or not. The players have certainly quit on him.

I took your comment to mean that we did not tell Bailiff he was not being retained, since you specifically stated that the search start quietly and he not get the ax until after the season.

There is a big difference, IMO, between seeing the writing on the wall but not having anything happen behind your back, or being told you will not be retained and aware that your employer is looking for other coaches, as compared to your employer going behind your back and not having the decency to tell you that you will be fired to your face.

Regarding Braun, I don't think we started the search before Braun knew he was done, via a communication from JK.

I'm pretty sure that Braun knew he was done half way through his final season; just as I'm pretty sure that Baiilff will know he is done this week. No one's going behind anyone's back, or suggesting we do so. Bailiff has lost the support of his players and the fan/donor base. He knows it and JK knows it. The only question remaining is whether he and JK agree on a "soft landing" in which he officially resigns at seasons end, or whether JK is forced to fire him.

(11-16-2015 11:35 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:24 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:09 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

Isn't that what happened with the Rhoades hire? I wonder if JK is doing his homework now on football coaching candidates. Wasn't JK also able to negotiate some of the Braun contract buyout in kind of a soft landing for everyone involved?

Yes, and yes. As for RiceLad's comments-- good grief, do you really think DB is going to be in the dark on this? Or do you honestly believe Braun actually resigned (as was the official, public words) as opposed to being told he was not going to be retained? DB is already a lame duck, whether he coaches out the season or not. The players have certainly quit on him.

I took your comment to mean that we did not tell Bailiff he was not being retained, since you specifically stated that the search start quietly and he not get the ax until after the season.

There is a big difference, IMO, between seeing the writing on the wall but not having anything happen behind your back, or being told you will not be retained and aware that your employer is looking for other coaches, as compared to your employer going behind your back and not having the decency to tell you that you will be fired to your face.

Regarding Braun, I don't think we started the search before Braun knew he was done, via a communication from JK.

I'm pretty sure that Braun knew he was done half way through his final season; just as I'm pretty sure that Baiilff will know he is done this week. No one's going behind anyone's back, or suggesting we do so. Bailiff has lost the support of his players and the fan/donor base. He knows it and JK knows it. The only question remaining is whether he and JK agree on a "soft landing" in which he officially resigns at seasons end, or whether JK is forced to fire him.

Then I mistook your comment about quietly starting the search and giving DB the ax at the end of the season.

(11-16-2015 11:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:19 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:56 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

OptimisticOwl Wrote:So, if it doesn't happen this week, and JK is still mulling it over, I presume a lot of y'all will be rooting (quietly in your hearts} for UTSA to beat us big and finish the job.

This is a disgusting tactic on your part.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as disgusting but it definitely felt a little bit patronizing and condescending.

Nobody yet has said it was inaccurate.

You claim to know what people are thinking, which means you know full well that it's an unproveable assumption on your part - so of course it can't be refuted. Then, you imply your baseless accusation has some merit because nobody took the trouble to deny it - also disgusting.

I think some are thinking another loss won't be totally bad, as it would definitely end the bowl streak and put a big nail into the coffin, just in case JK has not decided irrevocably to pull the trigger.

I guess you read minds better than I do, since you definitively know that nobody is thinking this.

It's kind of funny to be called out on reading minds. Some here (I don't know if this includes you) have been all too ready to read Bailiff's mind. For example, the idea that winning is not important to him because he has a contract. Even now we are discussing incentives as if they would drive him to coach better.

Although I haven't seen it this year, stuff about the good side effects of a bad loss has been said here in other years.

(11-16-2015 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 09:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  ...how does Bailiff's 800k stack up in the market? Would we be looking at paying more or less?

For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming he's gone (though I realize he might not be). We are already discussing his status in at least 73 other threads.

So, we would be competing with at least 11 (?) other FBS programs, and assuming some of the P5 schools hire G5 HCs, even more. Seems like those arguing for taking a chance on a young up and comer would get their wish - and it might even have to be someone not yet on a lot of people's radar.

I read this article that discusses the class of coaches hired when Pinkel was hired at Mizzou. In it, it quotes the pay for the assistant coaches at Mizzou - $675k and $625k for offensive and defensive coordinators.

If we want to bring in a coordinator from a P5 school, we will almost certainly need to pay them more than what Bailiff is receiving now.

If we want to take a gamble on coordinator from a G5, we may be able to reduce the salary a bit, or at least keep it even.

If we do change coaches, I hope that we go with a P5 coordinator and provide a decent salary with some incentives that may help keep the base salary low. I think it is imperative to go out and get someone with name/program recognition following DB.

There's been talk that our asst coaches have been underpaid during this period. Don't know if the AD has a total budget that's allocated between all, or if there are different line items in the budget for each coach. Regardless, given our current state, the more you pay the head man, the less may be available for the hired hands.

(11-16-2015 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are probably the only D1 school with a thread about turning down a bowl bid.

With all due respect that thread was ill-advised and based on a single offhand comment. I think I am right when I say literally zero people actually suggested that we should turn down a bowl bid. It was a silly thread about a non-issue. No reason to use that as a point about anything

(11-16-2015 12:15 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are probably the only D1 school with a thread about turning down a bowl bid.

With all due respect that thread was ill-advised and based on a single offhand comment. I think I am right when I say literally zero people actually suggested that we should turn down a bowl bid. It was a silly thread about a non-issue. No reason to use that as a point about anything

Nothing wrong with a discussion either.

It just means we are willing and able to consider a bowl bid in its entirety and make a determination that accepting is the right move. As opposed to we-must-football-because-we-have-always-footballed which is echoed across the majority of the country and Texas.

(11-16-2015 12:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:15 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are probably the only D1 school with a thread about turning down a bowl bid.

With all due respect that thread was ill-advised and based on a single offhand comment. I think I am right when I say literally zero people actually suggested that we should turn down a bowl bid. It was a silly thread about a non-issue. No reason to use that as a point about anything

Nothing wrong with a discussion either.

It just means we are willing and able to consider a bowl bid in its entirety and make a determination that accepting is the right move. As opposed to we-must-football-because-we-have-always-footballed which is echoed across the majority of the country and Texas.

So I was wrong, there is at least one person that thinks it is worthy of a discussion.

(11-16-2015 12:21 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:15 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are probably the only D1 school with a thread about turning down a bowl bid.

With all due respect that thread was ill-advised and based on a single offhand comment. I think I am right when I say literally zero people actually suggested that we should turn down a bowl bid. It was a silly thread about a non-issue. No reason to use that as a point about anything

Nothing wrong with a discussion either.

It just means we are willing and able to consider a bowl bid in its entirety and make a determination that accepting is the right move. As opposed to we-must-football-because-we-have-always-footballed which is echoed across the majority of the country and Texas.

So I was wrong, there is at least one person that thinks it is worthy of a discussion.

Worthy of a discussion, however that thread started under false pretenses. No one was suggesting turning it down.

(11-16-2015 12:32 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:21 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:20 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:15 PM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  We are probably the only D1 school with a thread about turning down a bowl bid.

With all due respect that thread was ill-advised and based on a single offhand comment. I think I am right when I say literally zero people actually suggested that we should turn down a bowl bid. It was a silly thread about a non-issue. No reason to use that as a point about anything

Nothing wrong with a discussion either.

It just means we are willing and able to consider a bowl bid in its entirety and make a determination that accepting is the right move. As opposed to we-must-football-because-we-have-always-footballed which is echoed across the majority of the country and Texas.

So I was wrong, there is at least one person that thinks it is worthy of a discussion.

Worthy of a discussion, however that thread started under false pretenses. No one was suggesting turning it down.

Not even worthy of a discussion, actually. There is no good that can come from turning down any bowl. The only point the proponents made was that it would show the world we are serious about getting better. I think all it would show the world is that we are idiots.

And here we are, discussing it again.

The concern with making a change at the end of the season as opposed to making it sooner is partially due to the effect it could have on recruiting. Most of our class is already committed and most, though not all, have few or no options better than Rice. So in that sense, I'm not too worried about waiting until after the Charlotte game, though it would be better to announce it already - that DB will step down at end of the season.

A change after we finish 6-6 but before the bowl game (if there is one) would be fine, if we can't announce it sooner. DB would resign after winning his last game with 4 straight non-losing seasons, the seniors go out wining their last game under him, and DB would advocate for one of his assistants to be the interim coach for the bowl game. It would be about as good of a break-up as we could hope for. DB has done a lot for Rice. He's improved the program in several departments. His former players like him, so do former greats that he's kept engaged with the program. We'd like him to be a Rice supporter even after he's gone.

Doing it before the bowl game would still give us some time and maybe even a chance to look good in a bowl game for our future coach. Waiting after the bowl game will not allow time to secure the recruiting class (1 month). If Bailiff coaches the bowl game, he's staying for at lease one more season.

I think all of the speculation about announcement vis a vis a bowl game is close to science fiction.

Our odds of going bowling are likely below 50%.

Even if we go bowling, there is no reason to expect us to "look good for the new coach". We have not been competitive against bowl eligible teams--our best loss is 25 vs. La Tech.

There is no reason to expect that the current staff can prepare this team to be competitive against even mediocre competition. Marshall, Air Force, and Fresno look like outliers, not standard performance.

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

I could not agree more. I recall last year going to the La Tech road game and hearing stories about Edmondson, Patterson and Lynch. You would ask yourself, why would you hire these guys and it makes sense now. They are Bailiff loyalist. They have to be, no other explanation for making Lynch a co-OC, not firing Edmondson after the awful display on offense. Patterson is Bailiff asst HC so he won't leave until Bailiff leaves.

I think the new HC starts clean and would probably only keep the Strength and conditioning staff.

(11-16-2015 03:09 PM)SaintsOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I think "the job" is already finished; it's simply a question of when JK makes it official. As with the Braun situation, I think the most likely scenario is that we quietly start the search now-- and get the word out, but that DB does not get the axe until the season is over. Our assistants are all DB loyalists, and even worse than he is, IMO.

I could not agree more. I recall last year going to the La Tech road game and hearing stories about Edmondson, Patterson and Lynch. You would ask yourself, why would you hire these guys and it makes sense now. They are Bailiff loyalist. They have to be, no other explanation for making Lynch a co-OC, not firing Edmondson after the awful display on offense. Patterson is Bailiff asst HC so he won't leave until Bailiff leaves.

I think the new HC starts clean and would probably only keep the Strength and conditioning staff.

I hope they wipe the entire staff, including the S&C team.

Our S&C is no where close to where it was from '06 to '13, IMO.

From our beat writer ... answer to question of:

"anyone ask him whether he had considered making staff changes after the last few weeks? It is either the players or the staff..."


@mymrbig No. Staff has gotten a team to a bowl game the last three years & its not just the staff or the current players. Many factors.

https://twitter.com/stephkuzy/with_replies