Since it's the offseason, I pulled this question out from the "Coaches Caravan" thread to get more perspective and discuss. In the same spirit of the "Transformation vs Incrementalism" thread from last off season, which had had some good perspective from many of the posters who contributed.

I still carry the philosophy that while incremental change is necessary in places, transformational change is what Rice needs vis a vis success in top men's sports, and to me, that entails multiple signature wins in Rice football, especially in light of perhaps another impending round of conference musical chairs.

Quote:I would ask about "signature wins." Ask Bailiff and JK each to define exactly what they think one is and isn't, and is the concept different (a lower bar) for Rice than other national schools? Related: Will Rice ever get a signature win in football (or another one, depending on how broadly they might define it) under Bailiff at Rice, and are multiple signature wins asking too much?

Related to that, can we get into JK's past stated goal of Top 25 ranking in football without signature wins as defined by national audiences not affiliated with Rice?

Finally, exactly how much longer is the expected wait in JK's timeline for a Top 25 football ranking for Rice? How long does Bailiff expect Rice to wait to be ranked Top 25 in football?

To clarify: the "Good Enough" moniker is not meant as a slight (I just didn't know what else to call the obverse). It may well be that one or both of JK and Coach Bailiff believe that performing without signature wins will be good enough to get Rice football where they want it to go. The question is do the posters on the Parliament agree? I have stated my position in the OP.

(05-11-2016 11:49 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Did anyone ask if relevance is a step function?

That's actually a good question, JAAO. I imagine it relates to the question of exactly what did Rice's 2013 CUSA championship, subsequent Liberty Bowl blowout, and the three bowls in a row before last year's no-bowl season achieve for Rice football as far as the landscape of possible realignment as it exists today, in May of 2016? And what is the degree of that impact? (which relates to your step function question more directly)

To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come. From that big win comes more big wins and consistency of success. You're no longer what you were before the win. You're bigger and better. The best example I can think of was the TCU win over USC in Sun Bowl back in the mid 90's.

A "major upset" is winning a game you have no business winning. Rice did it against Baylor in 1992 and against Texas in 1994. It's a big win, but it doesn't transform your team. You may be able to ride the emotions of that win into a big season, but it doesn't have a lasting effect on the program.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

Think the whole concept of "signature"wins is silly and overblown. SigWin is just an upset until it is backed up with more sigWins/upsets until they are no longer upsets. just ask Appy State or Centre College. or the 1957 Rice Owls.

i don't think we need upsets. We need to become the favorites.

since they are unimportant in themselves, I see no reason for BUailiff or JK to set a timetable for getting one. in any case, it will always be the next chance we get, not 2017 or any other clendar date.

nd who are they going to make happy? if we beat Baylor to go 8-4 or 9-3, second in Cusa, who the heck is going to be happy with that? he coach, whoever he is, won't be a hero for the SigWin - he will be a dunce for losing the other games with the team that beat Baylor.

(05-11-2016 05:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Think the whole concept of "signature"wins is silly and overblown. SigWin is just an upset until it is backed up with more sigWins/upsets until they are no longer upsets. just ask Appy State or Centre College. or the 1957 Rice Owls.

i don't think we need upsets. We need to become the favorites.

since they are unimportant in themselves, I see no reason for BUailiff or JK to set a timetable for getting one. in any case, it will always be the next chance we get, not 2017 or any other clendar date.

nd who are they going to make happy? if we beat Baylor to go 8-4 or 9-3, second in Cusa, who the heck is going to be happy with that? he coach, whoever he is, won't be a hero for the SigWin - he will be a dunce for losing the other games with the team that beat Baylor.

Respectfully disagree. Signature wins garner national attention and exposure, albeit short lived if not backed up with consistent winning. And again, as others have pointed out on numerous occassions, it's not one or the other. If we're good enough to pull off an upset over a nationally prominent program and gain national exposure, we're good enough to beat anyone and everyone in CUSA.

I always love threads on this topic!

Don't you need a string of signature wins or upsets (I don't see much of a difference) before you can routinely be the favorite?

I'd be happy with consistently kicking the CUSA's behind right now.

(05-11-2016 06:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Don't you need a string of signature wins or upsets (I don't see much of a difference) before you can routinely be the favorite?
I'd be happy with consistently kicking the CUSA's behind right now.

Yes, right now we need a string of any wins. Start going 10-2, 11-1, and the "signature" wins will come. A signature win usually happens when a team is better that people realized, and is often the way that such quality makes itself known.

A team good enough to get a signature win is good enough to go undefeated against CUSA; a team has to be good enough to go undefeated against CUSA before signature wins are a realistic possibility. We haven't been good enough for either in quite a while.

(05-11-2016 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 06:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Don't you need a string of signature wins or upsets (I don't see much of a difference) before you can routinely be the favorite?
I'd be happy with consistently kicking the CUSA's behind right now.

Yes, right now we need a string of any wins. Start going 10-2, 11-1, and the "signature" wins will come. A signature win usually happens when a team is better that people realized, and is often the way that such quality makes itself known.

A team good enough to get a signature win is good enough to go undefeated against CUSA; a team has to be good enough to go undefeated against CUSA before signature wins are a realistic possibility. We haven't been good enough for either in quite a while.

This. Signature wins and 0-2 loss seasons must go hand in hand or it's nothing but a fluke upset, which we had several during my time at Rice.

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come. From that big win comes more big wins and consistency of success. You're no longer what you were before the win. You're bigger and better. The best example I can think of was the TCU win over USC in Sun Bowl back in the mid 90's.

A "major upset" is winning a game you have no business winning. Rice did it against Baylor in 1992 and against Texas in 1994. It's a big win, but it doesn't transform your team. You may be able to ride the emotions of that win into a big season, but it doesn't have a lasting effect on the program.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

I agree with your definition of Signature Win, Afflicted.

I am concerned that four or five years from now for our first might again be too late to help Rice from falling further back, especially if Big12 realignment happens in next year or two.

(05-11-2016 09:29 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come. From that big win comes more big wins and consistency of success. You're no longer what you were before the win. You're bigger and better. The best example I can think of was the TCU win over USC in Sun Bowl back in the mid 90's.

A "major upset" is winning a game you have no business winning. Rice did it against Baylor in 1992 and against Texas in 1994. It's a big win, but it doesn't transform your team. You may be able to ride the emotions of that win into a big season, but it doesn't have a lasting effect on the program.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

I agree with your definition of Signature Win, Afflicted.

I am concerned that four or five years from now for our first might again be too late to help Rice from falling further back, especially if Big12 realignment happens in next year or two.

and yet, when you mention TCU, nobody says "oh yeah, the school that beat USC in the Sun Bowl back in the 90's." JK, at the caravan, mentioned TCU's Rose Bowl win (quick, who can remember who they beat) as one of the things that got them where they are.

We need whatever you call a sig win, whenever, and wherever we can get them, but a sig win standing alone is meaningless. Once again, ask Appy State. It is like having the first number called for the lottery - so far, so good, but you haven't won anything yet. It's a building block, not a foundation.

(05-11-2016 09:29 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  To me, a "signature win" is a win that's a catalyst for bigger and better things to come. From that big win comes more big wins and consistency of success. You're no longer what you were before the win. You're bigger and better. The best example I can think of was the TCU win over USC in Sun Bowl back in the mid 90's.

A "major upset" is winning a game you have no business winning. Rice did it against Baylor in 1992 and against Texas in 1994. It's a big win, but it doesn't transform your team. You may be able to ride the emotions of that win into a big season, but it doesn't have a lasting effect on the program.

Under Bailiff, we've had what I call "big wins," but no signature wins or major upsets. As far as working toward top 25 finishes is concerned, that's going to be a long process. I don't think JK expects anything like that to happen within the next four or five years. There's too much work to be done yet. Just my opinion.

I agree with your definition of Signature Win, Afflicted.

I am concerned that four or five years from now for our first might again be too late to help Rice from falling further back, especially if Big12 realignment happens in next year or two.

I don't think it would really matter, but we do need to either be in the MWC, or in some regional configuration of schools. Conferences look at the entire body of work. I don't think a big upset in football is going to move the needle much.

(05-11-2016 11:11 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  I don't think a big upset in football is going to move the needle much.

Nope.

I think we have to solve the problem on the D line and Cornerbacks. Don't know what you do about decimating injuries (and early graduation) on the line, which killed us last year, but I think Leebron HAS to honor his commitment to the exceptions, especially in the d backfield.

I heard we had NO exceptions on the team last year. Supposedly we're allowed 5.

Keep in mind that our exceptions would be at the top of the class on other teams.

If you can admit we are not at the 9 to 12 win level, and the two seasons in the last 10 we did reach that level, we did not maintain it, then you might understand my point of view. (If you think we are doing great right now, then ignore the rest, there's no arguing with that viewpoint.)

I don't think many people outside the board perceive Rice to be much more than we have been historically, and that is my issue. We can argue whether we are doing incrementally better, and no one is right on that absolutely. But I believe we need to be at a much higher level than wherever we are and sustain it consistently over years, not fall back down as soon as we come up for a breath of air.

We have one CUSA championship in 10 years. No matter how much we may have improved, it is still not nearly good enough. We need a Boise-like run of 10 CUSA Championships in a row (or a Rice baseball-like run to give an example closer to home-because THAT is what put Rice on the map nationally in a major sport) to begin to make a difference on the national level. I do not see that close to happening with the present situation, so I remain dissatisfied.

We need it in Basketball as well, and this coming season has to be a winning season, at the very minimum, or I'm taking one foot off the Rhoades bandwagon. Thing is, I have a better feeling that Rhoades will deliver, but we shall see.

Just going to bowl games by itself is not nearly enough. Is it better than not going? I'd say not so much as it used to be ten years ago. Everybody with a pulse (and nowadays some without) goes to a "bowl" game. They don't mean so much anymore. Now get to the Access Bowl five years in a row? Rattle off at least three or four 12-0 and 11-1 seasons back to back? Then we have something to crow about, like UH has now. (We'll see how UH does going forward--and that is kind of my point--they are still suspect despite their recent accomplishments, unlike Alabama, who everyone knows will be good even after they have a down year.)

I hate this debate, not because of the topic, but of how we talk about it.

A single win isnt a signature win. A signature win is the beginning of a transformation. When you look back, you see if a win was just an upset or if it portended greater things... But you can't see it at the time. You can hope for it and guess at it... But you can't see it.more to the point, not everyone will agree wHICH win started the transformation, but who cares, since there obviously WAS transformation... Which means there were lots of wins to choose from.

If you were an early adopter, it was 'this' game... If you were late to the party, maybe it was 'this' one. Say TCU and sun vs rose. But they probably don't get to the Rose if they don't win the sun.... Or their win in the Rose doesn't turn as many heads if they hadn't also won the sun. But the point is, who cares if it isn't a transformation? I can tell you that our manhandling of Fresno got some attention out here in Cali... But there was no follow through.

If we'd won the liberty and then beaten a$m to start the next season, some would say it was the liberty... Some A&M and some Marshall as 'the one' that turned their heads.... That signaled the transformation. Had we lost to ms but beaten a&m, Maybe it's still transformative. It's not a signature win because it didn't signify anything more than its lone victory.

But we didn't. And we aren't consistently in the top 3 of CUSA, not even in our division nor have we played in multiple championship games. At THIS point, we're not even the best of those who haven't left CUsA. We aren't yet the 'cream' of CUsA. The only transformation has been from cellar dweller in the SWC to competitive in the WAC to competitive in CUSA... Which to many seems more about the conference's than it does about us being any better than we used to be. When someone asks a pundit who is next to leave cusa, we aren't always mentioned

We're 'competitive' in G5... But that makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. I realize that we can't get everyone into Rice, but given our peer group, there is NO WAY we shouldn't be able to attract the best combination of academics and athletics in G5... And let's stop insulting other teams by suggesting that every team doesn't have a star or ten that could get into Rice.

So given our recent success at getting players to the NFL, on par with most anyone in G5... Why aren't we getting more kids recruiting themselves to Rice? Why would they rather play at UTEP or USTA or UH or Fresno? I don't mean specifically each player... I mean in aggregate.

Rice should be able to find DBs and dl and QBs and WRs that are as good or better than anyone else in G5... Because while there certainly are fewer guys in the country who are 6'4 and run a 4.4 and have a 3.0+ gpa, There is really only one school in G5 that matches that person. One. And if you're getting better talent, Davids schemes should do well.

That seems to be the plan, but we're missing that recruiting edge. Either we're not marketing it right, or we're not selling it right or we're not bundling it right. I don't know,but it's why I've harped on getting the university more involved in identifying talent across the country rather than just in Texas. Too many p5 schools with academics closer to ours when you adjust for the football differences recruit in our back yard. maybe that's not it... I don't know and don't care to argue it... But it seems obvious that nobody else knows it either. I don't care if our players are "better" than we were in the 90's.... Or if we're putting more players in the NFL... I mean that's all nice and all, and certainly these are some great athletes... But I want that to turn into some local and national respect... Not by NFL directors of scouting, but by fans of college football. I'll take multiple bowl wins... On the way to multiple conference championships... On the way to some top 25 mention on the way to some rankings....

But what I find odd is how we keep relying on slow and steady, but it seems that most everyone having success at this is doing it inspite of the things that we rely on...

(05-12-2016 09:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I hate this debate, not because of the topic, but of how we talk about it.

A single win isnt a signature win. A signature win is the beginning of a transformation. When you look back, you see if a win was just an upset or if it portended greater things... But you can't see it at the time. You can hope for it and guess at it... But you can't see it.more to the point, not everyone will agree wHICH win started the transformation, but who cares, since there obviously WAS transformation... Which means there were lots of wins to choose from.

If you were an early adopter, it was 'this' game... If you were late to the party, maybe it was 'this' one. Say TCU and sun vs rose. But they probably don't get to the Rose if they don't win the sun.... Or their win in the Rose doesn't turn as many heads if they hadn't also won the sun. But the point is, who cares if it isn't a transformation? I can tell you that our manhandling of Fresno got some attention out here in Cali... But there was no follow through.

If we'd won the liberty and then beaten a$m to start the next season, some would say it was the liberty... Some A&M and some Marshall as 'the one' that turned their heads.... That signaled the transformation. Had we lost to ms but beaten a&m, Maybe it's still transformative. It's not a signature win because it didn't signify anything more than its lone victory.

But we didn't. And we aren't consistently in the top 3 of CUSA, not even in our division nor have we played in multiple championship games. At THIS point, we're not even the best of those who haven't left CUsA. We aren't yet the 'cream' of CUsA. The only transformation has been from cellar dweller in the SWC to competitive in the WAC to competitive in CUSA... Which to many seems more about the conference's than it does about us being any better than we used to be. When someone asks a pundit who is next to leave cusa, we aren't always mentioned

We're 'competitive' in G5... But that makes absolutely NO SENSE to me. I realize that we can't get everyone into Rice, but given our peer group, there is NO WAY we shouldn't be able to attract the best combination of academics and athletics in G5... And let's stop insulting other teams by suggesting that every team doesn't have a star or ten that could get into Rice.

So given our recent success at getting players to the NFL, on par with most anyone in G5... Why aren't we getting more kids recruiting themselves to Rice? Why would they rather play at UTEP or USTA or UH or Fresno? I don't mean specifically each player... I mean in aggregate.

Rice should be able to find DBs and dl and QBs and WRs that are as good or better than anyone else in G5... Because while there certainly are fewer guys in the country who are 6'4 and run a 4.4 and have a 3.0+ gpa, There is really only one school in G5 that matches that person. One. And if you're getting better talent, Davids schemes should do well.

That seems to be the plan, but we're missing that recruiting edge. Either we're not marketing it right, or we're not selling it right or we're not bundling it right. I don't know,but it's why I've harped on getting the university more involved in identifying talent across the country rather than just in Texas. Too many p5 schools with academics closer to ours when you adjust for the football differences recruit in our back yard. maybe that's not it... I don't know and don't care to argue it... But it seems obvious that nobody else knows it either. I don't care if our players are "better" than we were in the 90's.... Or if we're putting more players in the NFL... I mean that's all nice and all, and certainly these are some great athletes... But I want that to turn into some local and national respect... Not by NFL directors of scouting, but by fans of college football. I'll take multiple bowl wins... On the way to multiple conference championships... On the way to some top 25 mention on the way to some rankings....

But what I find odd is how we keep relying on slow and steady, but it seems that most everyone having success at this is doing it inspite of the things that we rely on...

(05-12-2016 09:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A single win isnt a signature win. A signature win is the beginning of a transformation. When you look back, you see if a win was just an upset or if it portended greater things... But you can't see it at the time. You can hope for it and guess at it... But you can't see it.more to the point, not everyone will agree wHICH win started the transformation, but who cares, since there obviously WAS transformation... Which means there were lots of wins to choose from.

Yep. The only to tell if an upset is a transformative win is hindsight.

Quote: I'll take multiple bowl wins... On the way to multiple conference championships... On the way to some top 25 mention on the way to some rankings....

This is what I understood JK to be saying at the Caravan, except he put the conference championships first.

Maybe Sumlin will be available after this season. Would be interesting: UH's old coach coaching Rice in 2017 and Rice's old assistant coaching UH in 2017. But I think if Hermann has another good year at UH he may not last there and get called up to the major leagues instead...

Friday Five: College football coaches on the hot seat in 2016

1. Kevin Sumlin, Texas A&M: It's somewhat strange how Kevin Sumlin's life at Texas A&M has mirrored Johnny Manziel's life as a quarterback. When Sumlin first showed up in College Station, and Johnny Manziel became Johnny Football, life was great. The Aggies went 11-2 that first year, and seemed poised to become a real threat in the SEC West. Since that season, though, Manziel has never been quite the same, and neither have Sumlin's Aggies. They've gone 25-14 overall, which certainly isn't terrible, but the 11-13 mark in SEC play has been concerning. If things don't improve in 2016, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Texas A&M make a change.

If Sumlin isn't available, maybe Rice could go after another former Texas school coach:

2. Charlie Strong, Texas: Charlie Strong has a lot of support from all the people you want support from at Texas. It's just that support can fade rather quickly, and so far through two seasons, Strong's Texas teams have gone only 11-14 and 9-9 in the Big 12. That's not exactly acceptable at Texas, and barring a real turnaround in 2016, Strong could find himself in serious jeopardy of losing his job. Now, having said all that, of the five coaches on this list, the one I feel like is in a position to have that job-saving season is Strong. Yes, Texas struggled last year, but it was also a very young team. The Longhorns could be poised for a breakout.


College Football Coaches Whose Jobs Are on the Line in 2016
By Bryan Fischer, National College Football Columnist Feb 22, 2016

Group of Five coaches on the hot seat for 2016: David Bailiff (Rice), Craig Bohl (Wyoming), Ron Caragher (San Jose State), Doug Martin (New Mexico State), Paul Petrino (Idaho), Brian Polian (Nevada)