(09-26-2016 10:11 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 10:09 AM)raptorsareout Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 09:52 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 09:23 AM)raptorsareout Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 07:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Agreed.

There have been two great seasons under DB, despite what some say and how they find ways to diminish them. But those seasons were too far and few between for anyone to honestly say he has done a "great job" at this point. Holistically DB hasn't done a great job, even with the unique challenges coaching at Rice poses.

We've had two 10-win seasons and four bowl appearances under Bailiff. He's graduated 94% of his athletes and runs a completely clean program. He's done all this with no support from Rice University. No one else has done that at Rice. Under those circumstances, I'd say he's done a great job. He'll probably be welcome to stay because of the job he's, no matter what happens this season, but I think he's sick of it and ready to retire. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether or not he's done a great job.

Please STOP with the "no support from the University" crap. He's competing in CUSA, and Rice athletic support is NOT lagging behind the vast majority of conference schools. And though Rice academics limits the recruiting pool, we also have very significant recruiting advantages over other CUSA schools (e.g., academics for those families so inclined, the very attractive and deep Houston area recruiting pool). DB's overall W-L record during his 10+ year tenure, despite the last 5 years playing within arguably the weakest conference in the FBS division, and his pathetic record/performance against teams ranked inside the Top 75, would indicate he has done a below average job....and far from "great" or even "good". No one else had 10-win seasons or 4 bowl appearances in the previous 50 years because no else had the luxury of playing such a incredibly weak schedule and in an era when any team with 6 wins-- even if all of those 6 wins come against teams ranked in the bottom quintile of the FBS division-- gets a bowl invite. No question, he has numerous good qualities as you mention, and he did bring the program to a level of respectability in 2013...only to bring it crashing down again in only 2 short years. He has effectively destroyed whatever he had built, and we're back to square 1 as a program. Consequently, I'd grade his 10+ year performance as a "C" at best, all things considered, and quite honestly, I think that's being generous. He would have been fired at least twice-- half way through the 2012 season and after last season-- if not for a couple very influential BOT members who are long, close personal friends of his and were largely responsible for his original hiring. He will not be saved this year.

I don't even have to read it. I know what you're going to say every time.

Terrific. Please point any inaccuracies or false statements in my post.

No thanks

(09-25-2016 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There are starters/stars on every team in the country who can handle our academics AND be 'stars'.

We need to spend more money on identifying and recruiting those guys... and because these are STUDENTS first and foremost, the University should help and pay more to recruit them.

We need a far more broad network.

I have a feeling we need to do more than just identify them. We identified Andrew Luck, but couldn't reel him in due to what I imagine were a combination of our facilities, conference, and coaching staff.

I think our money would be spent better elsewhere at the moment because, while our facilities are now on par with other schools, the coaching staff isn't and our conference is undoubtedly a hinderance.

I do agree that there is a large pool of talent playing on other schools who could definitely handle the academics and investing more in recruiting would be good. I just think identifying and meeting these players will not be enough right now, and since I don't think Rice is up for writing a blank check, we should focus hypothetical funds into new coaching.

I'm not talking about Andrew Luck, who wasn't just a good QB but an All-American 1st pick in the draft QB offered by dozens of p5 schools.

I'm talking about 2-3 star guys who play like 4 star guys AND can handle the academics. Guys who play for UTSA or WKU or UH or Tulsa or Kansas or Purdue... Guys who Stanford, Cal and the like LOOK at but don't offer, and despite being good student, they end up at Fresno or San Jose (no room or wrong schematic fit).

Said simply, we are perhaps the 25th or 30th best option for 'athletes' recruited in the state of Texas... regardless of their academic proclivity or their desire to be in Texas or at Rice... and not all the great players come from Texas.

We need to broaden our base. The 15th best guy in Cali or the 8th best guy in Colo or NM might be better than the 30th best guy in Texas... especially when speaking about less obvious positions than QB

10+ years ago, maybe 20... you needed a coaches network to identify all but perhaps the 10 best guys... Now, all you need is a fast internet connection and a youtube account. I'm not saying it doesn't help to have personal connections... I'm simply saying that it is far less important in 2016 than in 1996. In 2016, and especially at a school already WAY down the pecking order... you need breadth more than depth.

We get the 5 or so guys per year in Texas who could go to SLIGHLTY better football schools but choose academics....

We need to get the 2 guys in Cali and Fla and 1 in Colo and NM and VA and Cn and OK and LA who could as well.

Only thing, lots of those out staters do not like it when they get here and go home.

We didn't lose guys from Canada.

Of course that sometimes happens, but the opposite is actually why/how we got McGuffie

I'd rather get and then lose a 3 star guy than get and keep a 2 star 'stretch' who doesn't work out. I think the numbers are probably similar.

(09-24-2016 09:43 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  5.) Mrs Greyowl said that the saddest part of a sad game was watching our players walk over to the MOB for the post game alma mater... Only to be confronted by 37 ( I counted) people in the student section.

There were maybe three times that many at their peak attendance.

Saddest part for me was watching some of our team head for the EZF, instead of coming over for the alma mater. The students are 'out of their way' after the game, with the EZF open.

Yes, it was a long wait to play "Rice's Honor", because UNT played their alma mater first.

(09-26-2016 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There are starters/stars on every team in the country who can handle our academics AND be 'stars'.

We need to spend more money on identifying and recruiting those guys... and because these are STUDENTS first and foremost, the University should help and pay more to recruit them.

We need a far more broad network.

I have a feeling we need to do more than just identify them. We identified Andrew Luck, but couldn't reel him in due to what I imagine were a combination of our facilities, conference, and coaching staff.

I think our money would be spent better elsewhere at the moment because, while our facilities are now on par with other schools, the coaching staff isn't and our conference is undoubtedly a hinderance.

I do agree that there is a large pool of talent playing on other schools who could definitely handle the academics and investing more in recruiting would be good. I just think identifying and meeting these players will not be enough right now, and since I don't think Rice is up for writing a blank check, we should focus hypothetical funds into new coaching.

I'm not talking about Andrew Luck, who wasn't just a good QB but an All-American 1st pick in the draft QB offered by dozens of p5 schools.

I'm talking about 2-3 star guys who play like 4 star guys AND can handle the academics. Guys who play for UTSA or WKU or UH or Tulsa or Kansas or Purdue... Guys who Stanford, Cal and the like LOOK at but don't offer, and despite being good student, they end up at Fresno or San Jose (no room or wrong schematic fit).

Said simply, we are perhaps the 25th or 30th best option for 'athletes' recruited in the state of Texas... regardless of their academic proclivity or their desire to be in Texas or at Rice... and not all the great players come from Texas.

We need to broaden our base. The 15th best guy in Cali or the 8th best guy in Colo or NM might be better than the 30th best guy in Texas... especially when speaking about less obvious positions than QB

10+ years ago, maybe 20... you needed a coaches network to identify all but perhaps the 10 best guys... Now, all you need is a fast internet connection and a youtube account. I'm not saying it doesn't help to have personal connections... I'm simply saying that it is far less important in 2016 than in 1996. In 2016, and especially at a school already WAY down the pecking order... you need breadth more than depth.

We get the 5 or so guys per year in Texas who could go to SLIGHLTY better football schools but choose academics....

We need to get the 2 guys in Cali and Fla and 1 in Colo and NM and VA and Cn and OK and LA who could as well.

I would like to see us reach more as well, but why do you think we would be a more desirable location for students who aren't from Texas as compared to students who are from Texas?

Do you think we would have a better chance with the 8th best guy in Colorado because less people are recruiting him as compared to the lower ranked Texas player?

(09-26-2016 06:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-26-2016 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-25-2016 10:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There are starters/stars on every team in the country who can handle our academics AND be 'stars'.

We need to spend more money on identifying and recruiting those guys... and because these are STUDENTS first and foremost, the University should help and pay more to recruit them.

We need a far more broad network.

I have a feeling we need to do more than just identify them. We identified Andrew Luck, but couldn't reel him in due to what I imagine were a combination of our facilities, conference, and coaching staff.

I think our money would be spent better elsewhere at the moment because, while our facilities are now on par with other schools, the coaching staff isn't and our conference is undoubtedly a hinderance.

I do agree that there is a large pool of talent playing on other schools who could definitely handle the academics and investing more in recruiting would be good. I just think identifying and meeting these players will not be enough right now, and since I don't think Rice is up for writing a blank check, we should focus hypothetical funds into new coaching.

I'm not talking about Andrew Luck, who wasn't just a good QB but an All-American 1st pick in the draft QB offered by dozens of p5 schools.

I'm talking about 2-3 star guys who play like 4 star guys AND can handle the academics. Guys who play for UTSA or WKU or UH or Tulsa or Kansas or Purdue... Guys who Stanford, Cal and the like LOOK at but don't offer, and despite being good student, they end up at Fresno or San Jose (no room or wrong schematic fit).

Said simply, we are perhaps the 25th or 30th best option for 'athletes' recruited in the state of Texas... regardless of their academic proclivity or their desire to be in Texas or at Rice... and not all the great players come from Texas.

We need to broaden our base. The 15th best guy in Cali or the 8th best guy in Colo or NM might be better than the 30th best guy in Texas... especially when speaking about less obvious positions than QB

10+ years ago, maybe 20... you needed a coaches network to identify all but perhaps the 10 best guys... Now, all you need is a fast internet connection and a youtube account. I'm not saying it doesn't help to have personal connections... I'm simply saying that it is far less important in 2016 than in 1996. In 2016, and especially at a school already WAY down the pecking order... you need breadth more than depth.

We get the 5 or so guys per year in Texas who could go to SLIGHLTY better football schools but choose academics....

We need to get the 2 guys in Cali and Fla and 1 in Colo and NM and VA and Cn and OK and LA who could as well.

I would like to see us reach more as well, but why do you think we would be a more desirable location for students who aren't from Texas as compared to students who are from Texas?

Do you think we would have a better chance with the 8th best guy in Colorado because less people are recruiting him as compared to the lower ranked Texas player?

Nuanced answer I'll try and be succinct about.... and I assume we're just picking Colorado....

Two parts of the equation... The 8th best kid in colorado is as good as the 30th best kid in Texas (and the 28th in Cali and 25th in Fl and 3rd in Delaware)... but say half of them don't qualify. So you're going to #31 or 32 in Texas.

100 schools recruit Texas. 20 recruit Colorado... and most 'at the top'. They stop at #4. CUSA type schools don't recruit there... unless they already are there.

Football isn't as big in Colorado so half the smaller schools don't play it. again, less competition for that guy.

SOme guys don't want to have to choose between playing football and getting a great education... and within g5, we're pretty much it. No, it's not 200 guys, it's 5 of them... but we should be able to get all 5 of them.

Take Tulsa, SMU and Tulane out of the equation (with only Tulane being an arguably better place to be)... and there isn't another g5 school within 100 spots of us academically. That's meaningful. The academies are different, and they DO recruit nationally.

I don't know what the rules are about recruiting in terms of identifying players and getting tape on them... contacting their academic counselors, not their coaches... but I don't expect the coaches to do all the leg work. I'd expect a special task force whose job it is to identify academically qualified athletes across the nation who might value education a lot... and I'd expect part of our recruiting staff to be able to scan tape for good possibilities. iirc, the only limits are on how many people can contact the kids... not review academic records or watch tape.

said simply, I'd have SOMEONE contact every kid who has expressed interest in Stanford, whom Stanford has expressed some interest in, who doesn't get a p5 offer. I'd have SOMEONE contact everyone who is qualified and whose best offer is Kansas (p5, but no bowl/reputation). Get some tape on them and let the coaches decide.

AND (most important) since the idea is to either get a better student who is as good an athlete, or the same student who is a better athlete, or ideally, someone better in BOTH respects, AND it increases our reach (including outreach to our alumni) I think these are things that the University would support and thus fund.

I agree that the kid from Texas is more likely to come to Rice than the kid from Colorado, but The university wants to change that. Let's piggy back on those efforts.