(03-09-2021 03:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:47 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 12:56 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  (Just so we’re clear, I’m not advocating settling for mediocrity.)

Rice is a below-average D1 coaching and AD destination. To expect Rice to consistently land and retain above-average coaching and AD talent is illogical, as is expecting Rice to never hire a dud.

Many of you set a minimum expectation that Rice consistently exceed the hiring successes of schools that have a lot more to offer. I get the sentiment, but it isn’t realistic.

Some of you talk about the need to hire coaches who “get Rice”. That doesn’t always work. Bailiff “got Rice” to an exceptional degree. That might be something that will improve chances of success, but it’s not a magic talisman.

And then there’s those of you who say that if we can’t be champions we should just drop the program. That’s what quitters and losers say. That’s the attitude of someone who throws his golf bag into a water hazard and walks away from the game because he’s never broken par for the course.

And that’s all I have to say on the subject.

I'd just like to see Rice's leadership thinking outside the box a little more. We keep trying the same formulas that have worked at other places, but we try them without the resources or history of success (the things that keep Rice a below-average destination). Mix in a little more initiative, creativity, and risk.

Two good posts on the right track IMO. The problem really isn't Karlgaard. It's Rice. I think JK came here thinking we were a Stanford-in-the-making, that there was a will here to throw the full weight of the university into achieving real athletic prominence (which IMO can only be done one of two ways: (a) with football in a P5 conference, or (b) without football).

There is no such will here. There is among Parliament posters and maybe even a few BOT members, but we/they are and always have been vastly outweighed by an apathetic-to-hostile rest of the Rice community. And it is nearly hopeless now that we are in the neighborhood we are. Essentially nobody associated with Rice can muster up any enthusiasm for playing the teams we do (those of you that can, my hat is off to you). Winning does help, and we do see short-term success here in various sports -- as most schools do -- but it quickly proves unsustainable (unless the sport literally has a HOF-level coach like WG, Victor Lopez/Jim Bevan, etc.) because the support isn't there. This place doesn't and isn't going to care about schools we have nothing in common with.

JK probably has modernized the athletic department into a generally functional state. That would have been enough to produce significant improvement at basically any other school in the country, i.e., those that are in conferences with peers, rivalries, a critical mass of engaged students/alumni, etc. -- the ingredients for life, as it were. But that's not the case here. He also has to hire -- and then retain -- miracle workers as coaches. In the big 3 sports, he hasn't. But could anyone?

In the short term, and especially in the big 3, I think if a coach isn't making any significant sparks within 3 years max, cut ties and spin the wheel again. You can't find what you need if you're not out there looking. JK is probably not going to be someone who does that, though. But I'm not sure anybody that comes from a conventional athletic administration background is going to be, either. And Rice seems an unlikely candidate to approve buyout after buyout as the P5 schools do.

In the longer (but not too long!) term, we need MAJOR outside-the-box thinking. I've proposed a ten-year "Manhattan Project/bet the company" level investment that would involve taking football independent, playing at least half our games against P5 schools, and either getting back to the P5 in 10 years or shutting down football. Or, we can shut football down now and put those resources toward our other sports and some new ones, with the goal of being top caliber in all.

However, without truly visionary change agents in the president's and AD's chairs -- and we have neither -- by default we are just going to stay the course.

we have a winner in the clubhouse. The last paragraph is exactly on point, with the needed addition that the course is neglect, providing the plausible deniability to be able to shut it down when it becomes obvious even to the last few diehards without any blood on "their" hands-see King Henry II and Thomas Becket or Captain Renault in Casablanca re gambling.

Re: Football and Baseball

I'm willing to overlook Karlgaard's extension of Bailiff. I generally assume that a new AD wants to replace the football coach at the first opportunity unless they've inherited an all-time great program. If I recall, JK didn't have a normal start of tenure with respect to football. His first year at Rice was the same year that Bailiff won the conference. I don't believe that JK had much choice but to extend Bailiff. Bailiff was nearing the end of his contract, had just completed his second consecutive winning season, just completed the second season in school history with 10 wins, just won the school's first outright conference title in decades, etc. I know there's a lot of asterisks to be put on those accomplishments concerning the true worth of the competition given all the C-USA departures, but it would be an incredibly bold move for an AD in the first months of his first D1 job to do anything other than give an extension to the well-liked FB coach who appears to have the program on a nominally upward trajectory.

I have no non-public evidence to support this, but I suspect that the way that Bailiff extension backfired fed into JK's egregiously poor handling of Wayne Graham's termination. He got burned once by extending a well-liked coach he inherited who looked to be on an upward trajectory, and he wasn't going to let that happen again for a coach clearly on a downward trajectory. I agree with the sentiment on this board that JK handled that process exceptionally poorly, but I also agree with JK that a change needed to be made. I will put all the blame (or credit, if it turns around) on JK for hiring Braga.

(03-10-2021 12:12 PM)franklyconfused Wrote:  Re: Football and Baseball

I'm willing to overlook Karlgaard's extension of Bailiff. I generally assume that a new AD wants to replace the football coach at the first opportunity unless they've inherited an all-time great program. If I recall, JK didn't have a normal start of tenure with respect to football. His first year at Rice was the same year that Bailiff won the conference. I don't believe that JK had much choice but to extend Bailiff. Bailiff was nearing the end of his contract, had just completed his second consecutive winning season, just completed the second season in school history with 10 wins, just won the school's first outright conference title in decades, etc. I know there's a lot of asterisks to be put on those accomplishments concerning the true worth of the competition given all the C-USA departures, but it would be an incredibly bold move for an AD in the first months of his first D1 job to do anything other than give an extension to the well-liked FB coach who appears to have the program on a nominally upward trajectory.

I have no non-public evidence to support this, but I suspect that the way that Bailiff extension backfired fed into JK's egregiously poor handling of Wayne Graham's termination. He got burned once by extending a well-liked coach he inherited who looked to be on an upward trajectory, and he wasn't going to let that happen again for a coach clearly on a downward trajectory. I agree with the sentiment on this board that JK handled that process exceptionally poorly, but I also agree with JK that a change needed to be made. I will put all the blame (or credit, if it turns around) on JK for hiring Braga.

Per the bold above, no-- the Bailiff situation had absolutely nothing to do with the handling of Wayne. First off, the Bailiff extension, while a mistake in hindsight, especially since the BOT wouldn't let Joe K. fire Bailiff in the 3rd and 4th year of his downward spiral, it was a no-brainer at the time. Not only had we just won the CUSA championship, but more importantly, Joe had far bigger issues to address (e.g., MBB, a new WBB coach and making the athletic department functional).

As for his relationship with The OG, it was not good from the get-go. I have no reason why. My guess is that Joe was envious of the position and stature that Wayne held at Rice. It was so bad that very quickly after Joe came onboard Rick Mello became the AD liaison to the baseball program on almost all matters including operating budget, RBI Club, scheduling, etc. Almost all of us-- even the most ardent Wayne supporters-- agreed it was time for a change. However, the way it was handled was a disaster and, IMO, almost all the blame rests with Joe. Yes, Wayne wanted to stay and was not prepared to retire voluntarily, but knowing that his contract was due to expire, Joe should have put on his big boy pants and told Wayne this was going to be his final season as he was about to enter his contract year. This would have allowed the fans to give Wayne a farewell tour his final season. Instead, nothing was done prior to the commencement of the season. Then, a couple weeks into the season, a group of us (and many of the biggest baseball donors) with Wayne's blessing, sent a letter to Joe, Leebron and the BOT requesting that Wayne be given one addition and final year....to which we never received a response from anybody. Finally, in April, Joe announced that this would be Wayne's final season.

(03-10-2021 12:29 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  the BOT wouldn't let Joe K. fire Bailiff in the 3rd and 4th year of his downward spiral,

A downward spiral from 7-6?

(03-10-2021 01:17 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Karlgaard's contract is up in about five months. I actually expect to hear soon that it has been extended.. He does things the Rice way. He's a "yes" man who doesn't make waves. He doesn't test the boundaries. I don't think they really care that we're terrible in the big three sports right now. They'll give him another chance to figure it all out.

I unfortunately agree 100%... and I don't mean that as a personal knock on Joe... This HAS been 'the Rice way' for a very long time and he does a very good job of the above and we can give him SOME credit for realizing where he CAN make an impact without making waves (women's sports) and doing so.

It hasn't hurt those efforts though that sports like football, despite their continued popularity vastly above women's sports are unpopular politically, while women's sports and empowerment has been popular politically.

What I've been trying to allude to in some of my posts has been that athletics, ESPECIALLY Football, basketball and track have been SIGNIFICANT contributors to racial diversity at Rice... which is also a politically popular focus... and like gender equality, is also highly consistent with the values of Rice as reflected in the last 50 years or so, despite our problematic founding.

These are REAL issues and whether we support it or not, we cannot ignore the SIRENS SONG of professional athletics, especially to gifted athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds. Don't we OWE it to those groups to not make them CHOOSE between a great path to professional sports and a great Academic opportunity? Schools like UT certainly have a possibility for a similarly great academic opportunity, but to pretend that athletics at UT really give a rats ass about encouraging their athletes to pursue that opportunity (as opposed to taking easier classes) is a joke. Those that do it at UT MOSTLY do it because of what is inside them and not because they were encouraged by their coaches. At Rice, its all but a requirement to pursue it, and the coaches have no choice but to enable, if not encourage it. Let's not even talk about many/most CUSA schools.

This is the sort of thing I talk about when I mean 'thinking outside the box' even if your goal is to 'not make waves'. Failing to address racial inequalities WOULD BE 'making waves'... and you have a golden opportunity to do so when athletics are so big a part of racial diversity on SO MANY campuses. Change the narrative. We can 'deprioritize' athletics... but will we increase or decrease the outreach to minority applicants by doing so? If we don't offer an athletic scholarship but instead an academic one, will they be more likely to take it?? Or more likely to take the one at a school that offers them an education AND the possibility of a pro career?

(03-10-2021 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I feel like we're being too hard on Karlgaard in regards to men's basketball, in a comparative sense. He deserves at least an A for not causing a mass basketball transfer because of racist remarks.

Okay, you made me laugh... what an amazingly low bar was set before him lol.... he has clearly SHATTERED that expectation.

(03-10-2021 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-10-2021 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I feel like we're being too hard on Karlgaard in regards to men's basketball, in a comparative sense. He deserves at least an A for not causing a mass basketball transfer because of racist remarks.

Okay, you made me laugh... what an amazingly low bar was set before him lol.... he has clearly SHATTERED that expectation.

If you want your memory jogged, read the accusations. I think I blacked out the time between CDC and JK.

I mean, we called the guy Ranger Rick and we obviously have an acronym thing going. That shoulda been the first sign.

Karlgaard did not have to extend Bailiff, and certainly not for as long as he did. Was there some other school trying to beat down the door to hire Bailiff if Rice didn't extend him? I'm sure there was pressure from some of the donors, but it was ultimately Karlgaard's decision and that is fully part of his record. I think it was a defensible decision for a lot of reasons, but I think it was also the wrong decision.

(03-09-2021 01:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Baseball (B-): my main problem with the Braga hire is that Berkman wanted the job. Like he really, really wanted it. Getting someone of that cache in baseball circles with his name for recruiting, not to mention his great personality for recruiting and likely being popular with HS coaches, that's tough to beat. An alum who would likely stay at Rice if he is successful, even if he is making less money. Seemed like a no-brainer to me. Braga was actually a risky hire with Berkman as the other option. So I'll give JK some kudos on having the guts to make a hire that he probably new a decent chunk of the fan base would not like ... but it was probably not the right move unless things turn around super quick. I'd increase the grade on this hire to a B if Berkman had not wanted the job. I don't know the inside details on WG's departure, but it certainly left a sour taste in my mouth. My sense from afar is that WG and JK could have handled things better.

Football (C+): extending Bailiff was a mistake. Bloomgren is better IMHO, but his inflexibility on offense and apparent inability to recruit/develop a QB have really held the team back. Bloomgren seems like the kind of guy who can be successful (but not elite) at a P5 program where he can win some recruiting battles, but not the kind of transformative coach that Rice really needed then and needs now. Bloomgren is a football coach, Rice needs a chess player who will take some risks.

Men's Basketball (B): I liked the Rhoades hire and always thought he would move to greener pastures in 3-5 years. He was a potential shot in the arm to the program. I never expected that so many players would transfer when he left. I still like the Pera hire. Not sure what to do about the defense, but he has been able to identify, recruit, and develop some seriously talented offensive players. That isn't easy at Rice! Unfortunately, most of them transfer when the develop. In the current men's basketball landscape, I'm not sure what kind of coach can avoid the transfer epidemic, if I was convinced someone could, then I would probably drop this grade to a B-, because Rice really needs someone who can keep reasonable talent on campus for 4 years.

Women's Basketball (A): Enough said.

I don't follow the other sports enough to give grades.

Does JK get bonus points for not saying racially insensitive things to student athletes, threatening to fight a football player, or any of the other weird things that I dare not delve into that came with his predecessor?

I'd probably give JK a B overall, even though the weight of his hires might be lower.

Rice needs something transformative at this point. JK has been here long enough that we know he isn't going to be a transformative leader. I'm OK with Rice taking a chance on a new leader at this point. I don't regret the hiring of JK by any stretch, I just feel like we are at the point where there is no rational reason to expect a significant improvement from him moving forward and we need someone who at least has a chance of significant improvement. He's done some good things, but Rice has mostly tread water. That's better than drowning, but not as good as swimming or building a boat.

I wish you were the prof in some of my classes...I would've finished with a much higher GPA! I'd say:

Baseball: F. Gone from power to laughingstock during his reign. Not to mention all the fallout from Graham mishandling. Whiffed Bragga hire badly.
Football: Agreed, C+. Some good infrastructure improvements but we haven't been bowl eligible since 2014.
Basketball: C+. Finally showing signs of life, kind of. But still bottom tier C-USA team. Despite this season and Rhoades one good season, overall record during his tenure is very bad.
Women's Basketball: A
Non-Revenue Sports: B-. Some are doing fine, others not so much.

Marathon blogging/anti-racism blogging/brand refreshing/serving on panels/every other thing that doesn't actually help Rice athletics at all: A+

Overall: C-

I'll IBID to the branding everywhere. I can't tell you how much I hate the sideline PVC panels. They look cheap and remind me of the scene in Major League 2 where Roger DOrn remodels the outfield.

Put them on the outer wall or as I've said before... get some of those electronic banners (like all the good stadiums have) and flash them there. A GREAT spot for them would be along the 'shelf' to the upper decks. If we don't like that because TV can't see them... pfft... never mind... I crack myself up sometimes.

(03-10-2021 02:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Karlgaard did not have to extend Bailiff, and certainly not for as long as he did. Was there some other school trying to beat down the door to hire Bailiff if Rice didn't extend him? I'm sure there was pressure from some of the donors, but it was ultimately Karlgaard's decision and that is fully part of his record. I think it was a defensible decision for a lot of reasons, but I think it was also the wrong decision.

This would have been a great time for a 1-2yr rolling extension as a result of the shake-up above him. I think too much 'power' was given to the idea that kids would want to know their coach would be there. That's clearly not even a good bet with a contract, and NOBODY is committing to a losing program/coach or program/coach in decline. They THINK they're committing to a winner.... and can be just as wrong as anyone else. Besides, if you give yourself another year to get a good perspective, you MIGHT miss out on a hand full of kids from that one recruiting class... if instead you sign him for 5 more and he fails, you MIGHT miss out on 3-4 years worth of recruits... or if you mishandle it, potentially 'forever'.

Does anyone on the forum actually think that we can’t bring someone in who will at worst be as good as Karlgaard? Baseball has collapsed and basketball/football can’t really get much worse than bottom tier CUSA.

Women’s basketball, volleyball, and tennis have been good, but 2 of those coaches were pre karlgaard and had lots of success before him. Men’s tennis and golf are horrible compared to what they used to be pre Karlgaard. Can’t speak for track and field. Swimming seems to have been roughly same forever.

Can we not do better than this?

(03-10-2021 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-10-2021 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-10-2021 08:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I feel like we're being too hard on Karlgaard in regards to men's basketball, in a comparative sense. He deserves at least an A for not causing a mass basketball transfer because of racist remarks.

Okay, you made me laugh... what an amazingly low bar was set before him lol.... he has clearly SHATTERED that expectation.

If you want your memory jogged, read the accusations. I think I blacked out the time between CDC and JK.

I mean, we called the guy Ranger Rick and we obviously have an acronym thing going. That shoulda been the first sign.

Nope, I'm good. I think I mostly blocked all that out in my evaluations of JK. He CLEARLY has exceeded his immediate predecessor in (likely) every regard. Better to laugh at having forgotten it than to cry at remembering it

(03-10-2021 04:56 PM)jowls13 Wrote:  Does anyone on the forum actually think that we can’t bring someone in who will at worst be as good as Karlgaard? Baseball has collapsed and basketball/football can’t really get much worse than bottom tier CUSA.

Women’s basketball, volleyball, and tennis have been good, but 2 of those coaches were pre karlgaard and had lots of success before him. Men’s tennis and golf are horrible compared to what they used to be pre Karlgaard. Can’t speak for track and field. Swimming seems to have been roughly same forever.

Can we not do better than this?

Sure we can.

(03-10-2021 04:56 PM)jowls13 Wrote:  Does anyone on the forum actually think that we can’t bring someone in who will at worst be as good as Karlgaard? Baseball has collapsed and basketball/football can’t really get much worse than bottom tier CUSA.

Women’s basketball, volleyball, and tennis have been good, but 2 of those coaches were pre karlgaard and had lots of success before him. Men’s tennis and golf are horrible compared to what they used to be pre Karlgaard. Can’t speak for track and field. Swimming seems to have been roughly same forever.

Can we not do better than this?

Of course we can do better. Somebody needs to sell the board/Leebron that. Good luck.

(03-10-2021 11:38 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(03-10-2021 01:17 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Karlgaard's contract is up in about five months. I actually expect to hear soon that it has been extended.. He does things the Rice way. He's a "yes" man who doesn't make waves. He doesn't test the boundaries. I don't think they really care that we're terrible in the big three sports right now. They'll give him another chance to figure it all out.

sad and true

What is happening with the Karlgaard contract? Google shows February 2018 articles covering a press conference announcing extension of his contract through June 2021. If Karlgaard is getting another extension, should we already have an announcement?

I would think so. I have no idea what's going on with this either. Perhaps they should just extend it to coincide with the expiration of Bloomgren's contract. After all, this football season will definitely be a determining factor in both men's future at Rice. If our squad flounders around again, things don't look good for anyone involved. This is a tough situation.

Could the replacement of Tina play a part in this??

(04-09-2021 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Could the replacement of Tina play a part in this??

Karlgaard hired the best WBB coach Rice has ever had.

(04-09-2021 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Could the replacement of Tina play a part in this??

That’s what I wonder. If Karlgaard is negotiating his extension as AD with the replacement search for Tina, I hope the negotiations include specifics to cutting Bragga loose in June, too.

(03-10-2021 02:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Karlgaard did not have to extend Bailiff, and certainly not for as long as he did. Was there some other school trying to beat down the door to hire Bailiff if Rice didn't extend him? I'm sure there was pressure from some of the donors, but it was ultimately Karlgaard's decision and that is fully part of his record. I think it was a defensible decision for a lot of reasons, but I think it was also the wrong decision.

(03-10-2021 02:45 PM)RiceOwls2019 Wrote:  

(03-09-2021 01:40 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Baseball (B-): my main problem with the Braga hire is that Berkman wanted the job. Like he really, really wanted it. Getting someone of that cache in baseball circles with his name for recruiting, not to mention his great personality for recruiting and likely being popular with HS coaches, that's tough to beat. An alum who would likely stay at Rice if he is successful, even if he is making less money. Seemed like a no-brainer to me. Braga was actually a risky hire with Berkman as the other option. So I'll give JK some kudos on having the guts to make a hire that he probably new a decent chunk of the fan base would not like ... but it was probably not the right move unless things turn around super quick. I'd increase the grade on this hire to a B if Berkman had not wanted the job. I don't know the inside details on WG's departure, but it certainly left a sour taste in my mouth. My sense from afar is that WG and JK could have handled things better.

Football (C+): extending Bailiff was a mistake. Bloomgren is better IMHO, but his inflexibility on offense and apparent inability to recruit/develop a QB have really held the team back. Bloomgren seems like the kind of guy who can be successful (but not elite) at a P5 program where he can win some recruiting battles, but not the kind of transformative coach that Rice really needed then and needs now. Bloomgren is a football coach, Rice needs a chess player who will take some risks.

Men's Basketball (B): I liked the Rhoades hire and always thought he would move to greener pastures in 3-5 years. He was a potential shot in the arm to the program. I never expected that so many players would transfer when he left. I still like the Pera hire. Not sure what to do about the defense, but he has been able to identify, recruit, and develop some seriously talented offensive players. That isn't easy at Rice! Unfortunately, most of them transfer when the develop. In the current men's basketball landscape, I'm not sure what kind of coach can avoid the transfer epidemic, if I was convinced someone could, then I would probably drop this grade to a B-, because Rice really needs someone who can keep reasonable talent on campus for 4 years.

Women's Basketball (A): Enough said.

I don't follow the other sports enough to give grades.

Does JK get bonus points for not saying racially insensitive things to student athletes, threatening to fight a football player, or any of the other weird things that I dare not delve into that came with his predecessor?

I'd probably give JK a B overall, even though the weight of his hires might be lower.

Rice needs something transformative at this point. JK has been here long enough that we know he isn't going to be a transformative leader. I'm OK with Rice taking a chance on a new leader at this point. I don't regret the hiring of JK by any stretch, I just feel like we are at the point where there is no rational reason to expect a significant improvement from him moving forward and we need someone who at least has a chance of significant improvement. He's done some good things, but Rice has mostly tread water. That's better than drowning, but not as good as swimming or building a boat.

I wish you were the prof in some of my classes...I would've finished with a much higher GPA! I'd say:

Baseball: F. Gone from power to laughingstock during his reign. Not to mention all the fallout from Graham mishandling. Whiffed Bragga hire badly.
Football: Agreed, C+. Some good infrastructure improvements but we haven't been bowl eligible since 2014.
Basketball: C+. Finally showing signs of life, kind of. But still bottom tier C-USA team. Despite this season and Rhoades one good season, overall record during his tenure is very bad.
Women's Basketball: A
Non-Revenue Sports: B-. Some are doing fine, others not so much.

Marathon blogging/anti-racism blogging/brand refreshing/serving on panels/every other thing that doesn't actually help Rice athletics at all: A+

Overall: C-

(03-10-2021 04:56 PM)jowls13 Wrote:  Does anyone on the forum actually think that we can’t bring someone in who will at worst be as good as Karlgaard? Baseball has collapsed and basketball/football can’t really get much worse than bottom tier CUSA.

Women’s basketball, volleyball, and tennis have been good, but 2 of those coaches were pre karlgaard and had lots of success before him. Men’s tennis and golf are horrible compared to what they used to be pre Karlgaard. Can’t speak for track and field. Swimming seems to have been roughly same forever.

Can we not do better than this?

Football was 2 and 3 last year; do we give them credit for a prorated 5 and 7 on a 12 game season? If not and if you say we only won 2 games, fine. We also only lost 3. We were in every game last year and crushed (yes, a 20 point margin is a crushing) a ranked team last year. You can claim small sample size, but you cannot fairly say the 2020 season was not better than 2019 or 2018 or 2017.

So let’s see how 2021 turns out. What is your CUSA minimum wins? A football coach at a high academics, under resourced school with an either indifferent or ineffective BOV when it comes to sports. What is a coach to do?

And before you quote me Northwestern (brand new top of the line football practice facility); Duke (best off court basketball facilities in the country); Stanford (where would I begin, on resources and facilities); and Vandy (no clue but I do know they warehouse quite a few players at the lesser academic school in Nashville and transfer the credits), beware of the tremendous institutional support provided by the schools. It isn’t even close.

(03-09-2021 12:56 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  (Just so we’re clear, I’m not advocating settling for mediocrity.)

Rice is a below-average D1 coaching and AD destination. To expect Rice to consistently land and retain above-average coaching and AD talent is illogical, as is expecting Rice to never hire a dud.

Many of you set a minimum expectation that Rice consistently exceed the hiring successes of schools that have a lot more to offer. I get the sentiment, but it isn’t realistic.

I agree. This is almost by definition, unsustainable.

Quote:Some of you talk about the need to hire coaches who “get Rice”. That doesn’t always work. Bailiff “got Rice” to an exceptional degree. That might be something that will improve chances of success, but it’s not a magic talisman.

I don't know that this is true. I know he tried more than many/most, but his goal was still to beat other teams by trying to do precisely what you say above... consistently out-recruit schools without our limitations... consistently replace successful coaches who leave with good/better ones.

To me, 'getting' Rice means something different. Bailiff did better than other coaches have by a long shot, but he was still in a completely different zip code from Rice (the University). He was perhaps more like Rice in the 1960s or 70's.

Quote:And then there’s those of you who say that if we can’t be champions we should just drop the program. That’s what quitters and losers say. That’s the attitude of someone who throws his golf bag into a water hazard and walks away from the game because he’s never broken par for the course.

And that’s all I have to say on the subject.

This. This is what 'getting Rice' means to me. You do it BECAUSE it is hard... and 'winning' is actually somewhat secondary. Said differently, Rice people value the tougher challenge. For Rice people, it is better to come in second in a competition against the best than to win against the weakest competition. It is better to try and do the impossible and come up short than to do the everyday.

If you want to win the current crop of Rice students and academs... you don't do it by trying to teach them to enjoy football. You do it by trying to get them to understand and support the same sort of 'great challenges' that drove them to choose Rice themselves.

(04-09-2021 04:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Could the replacement of Tina play a part in this??

Karlgaard hired the best WBB coach Rice has ever had.

But the job description as well as the goals he personally stated for himself require repeating that... and doing it in multiple sports.

Quote:Football was 2 and 3 last year; do we give them credit for a prorated 5 and 7 on a 12 game season? If not and if you say we only won 2 games, fine. We also only lost 3. We were in every game last year and crushed (yes, a 20 point margin is a crushing) a ranked team last year. You can claim small sample size, but you cannot fairly say the 2020 season was not better than 2019 or 2018 or 2017.

Virtually by definition, you can't take a limited sample and extrapolate it. If you could, we'd pretty frequently 'project' 0-11 seasons, since we've often started off the season with losses. Anything from 2-10 to 10-3 was possible based on last years sample.

Marshal has (with some regularity) captured some top 25 votes by playing and beating NOBODY and then losing games that on paper, they shouldn't.... AT least twice to us. That's their model/gameplan.

Quote:So let’s see how 2021 turns out. What is your CUSA minimum wins? A football coach at a high academics, under resourced school with an either indifferent or ineffective BOV when it comes to sports. What is a coach to do?

I have the same goal I've been stating for 15+ years. I want us to be nationally relevant... top 75.

What does it tell you that Rice stomped Marshall last year and we still finished ranked around 85 while Marshall, the team we stomped AT HOME with a backup QB STILL finished in the top 40??

It's because we demonstrated zero consistency. The Defense against Marshall appeared STOUT, and then we followed that with a virtual 'no show' at home... where almost any defense at all would have resulted in a win. Our offense was also Jekyll/Hyde...

Basically what the rankings show me is that people think Marshall was pretty good and happened to have ONE crappy game against a relatively weak team that at the same moment, happened to have they stars align. That's what they think.

What's a coach to do? Fix that.

Quote:And before you quote me Northwestern (brand new top of the line football practice facility); Duke (best off court basketball facilities in the country); Stanford (where would I begin, on resources and facilities); and Vandy (no clue but I do know they warehouse quite a few players at the lesser academic school in Nashville and transfer the credits), beware of the tremendous institutional support provided by the schools. It isn’t even close.

Neither is the level of in-conference competition even close.

I don't really understand your point though... what is YOUR expectation?? Are you suggesting that we should simply be satisfied with one conference championship every 15-20 years? With one ranking inside the top 50 every 15-20 years? And of doing this while playing 70% of our games each year against teams that are ranked among the bottom 25 and being compared on a weekly basis to schools consistently ranked 300 places below us in the ranking systems??

When we speak about women's basketball and volleyball in 2021, do we talk about their great accomplishment being winning CUSA?? Or about beating UT and A&M? Which got more attention? Which is credited with the teams high rankings?