(12-08-2022 07:02 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 01:27 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 01:24 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I know Rice fans here would never be happy with a coach with an overall record of .500. We wouldn't even be happy with a coach with an overall record of .700. And again, we here don't even represent 1% of Rice's total alumni and fan base. All the others don't really care at all. They aren't engaged, or even interested unless we go to a bowl game.

Count me on the side of being ecstatic with an overall record in football of 0.700!

At the very least, I think we'd all love to have the chance to see how we would feel in such a situation.

I guess that "overall" means over a period greater than a season, since I have personally experienced a couple of seasons over .700. I liked the feeling.

But whether it refers to a decade or a tenure or any other period, I agree.

(12-08-2022 01:24 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I know Rice fans here on Parliament would never be happy with a coach with an overall record of .500. We wouldn't even be happy with a coach with an overall record of .700. And again, we here don't even represent 1% of Rice's total alumni and fan base. All the others don't really care at all. They aren't engaged, or even interested unless we go to a bowl game.

An overall record of .500 would be a massive improvement over anyone since Neely.

An overall record of .700 would be something that has been achieved by only 16 current D1 coaches: Brian Kelly, Tom Herman, Luke Fickell, Billy Napier, Curt Cignetti (former Rice QB coach under Berndt), Kalen DeBoer, Jimbo Fisher, Josh Heupel, Dan Lanning, Jeff Traylor, Dabo Swinney, Nick Saban, Kirby Smart, Jon Sumrall, Lincoln Riley, and Ryan Day. So roughly 10%, most of them considered among the very, very best in the business. I think Rice would be ecstatic to be counted in that number.

I think one coach since the 40's has left the program with an overall record above .500.

(12-08-2022 09:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I think one coach since the 40's has left the program with an overall record above .500.

Only one since Jess, and nobody was sorry to see that one leave.

I'd be happy with a coach who never let us drop below #80 in rankings, and occassionally had us 'recieving votes'. Might I DREAM of more, of course... but I wouldn't expect it/want to fire a coach who couldn't get there. Once we got there I'm sure I'd want to raise that lower bar to say 60 and maybe actually be ranked every blue moon.... and I might want to spend more of that extra revenue this would undoubtably create to try and get there... but I wouldn't be saying we need a new head coach. Give me a guy who has us ranked 25-50 every year and I'll put him up there just below OG.

The number of wins that represented would be mostly a function of our schedule. I've repeatedly said I'd rather be 0.500 in a p5 conference than 0.800 in CUSA.... because of the greater attention and revenue that would stem from the former... but those probably represent about the same quality of teams, generally.

(12-09-2022 10:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'd be happy with a coach who never let us drop below #80 in rankings, and occassionally had us 'recieving votes'. Might I DREAM of more, of course... but I wouldn't expect it/want to fire a coach who couldn't get there. Once we got there I'm sure I'd want to raise that lower bar to say 60 and maybe actually be ranked every blue moon.... and I might want to spend more of that extra revenue this would undoubtably create to try and get there... but I wouldn't be saying we need a new head coach. Give me a guy who has us ranked 25-50 every year and I'll put him up there just below OG.

Difference between happy and satisfied.

I would be happy with that, but not satisfied. At whatever level we achieved, I would want more.

(12-08-2022 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 09:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I think one coach since the 40's has left the program with an overall record above .500.

Only one since Jess, and nobody was sorry to see that one leave.

I was sorry to see him arrive. Never bought into the hero worship, then or now. But the last half of 2006, without the bowl game, was very exciting.

(12-08-2022 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 09:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I think one coach since the 40's has left the program with an overall record above .500.

Only one since Jess, and nobody was sorry to see that one leave.

This is what irks me. The best football coach in the history of Rice football, who coached in the most favorable environment in the history of Rice football, wasn't even able to win more than 53% of his games. Neely had highs and lows just like Hatfield and Bailiff, our two best coaches since he left. Even Fred Goldsmith only had one winning season out of five.

I want to know how anyone here reasonably expects for Rice to finally find the coach who will consistently win over .500 of his games for his entire tenure, no matter how long or short it may be, taking into account the deck that is stacked against Rice in today's college football environment of NIL, transfer portal, skyrocketing athletics budgets, and kids who no longer care about education first? I don't think some of you really have any idea how incredibly hard it is for Rice to win against this backdrop.

If Neely couldn't do it back then, and if Ken Hatfield and David Bailiff couldn't do it today, what are the realistic chances of it happening at all? Think about it.

(12-09-2022 02:00 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 09:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2022 09:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I think one coach since the 40's has left the program with an overall record above .500.

Only one since Jess, and nobody was sorry to see that one leave.

This is what irks me. The best football coach in the history of Rice football, who coached in the most favorable environment in the history of Rice football, wasn't even able to win more than 53% of his games. Neely had highs and lows just like Hatfield and Bailiff, our two best coaches since he left. Even Fred Goldsmith only had one winning season out of five.

I want to know how anyone here reasonably expects for Rice to finally find the coach who will consistently win over .500 of his games for his entire tenure, no matter how long or short it may be, taking into account the deck that is stacked against Rice in today's college football environment of NIL, transfer portal, skyrocketing athletics budgets, and kids who no longer care about education first? I don't think some of you really have any idea how incredibly hard it is for Rice to win against this backdrop.

If Neely couldn't do it back then, and if Ken Hatfield and David Bailiff couldn't do it today, what are the realistic chances of it happening at all? Think about it.

Back "then", coaches had their ups and downs, good seasons and bad. Take a look at the SWC champs of the 50's.

1950 Texas Longhorns football team
1951 TCU Horned Frogs football team
1952 Texas Longhorns football team
1953 Rice Owls football team
1953 Texas Longhorns football team
1954 Arkansas Razorbacks football team
1955 TCU Horned Frogs football team
1956 Texas A&M Aggies football team
1957 Rice Owls football team
1958 TCU Horned Frogs football team
1959 Arkansas Razorbacks football team

In a ten year span, five different schools were champs.

Today, we have dynasties, with the same teams winning year after year, and even Saban better not make a habit of losing two games in a year.

Which makes it all that much harder to compete.

(12-09-2022 04:46 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Which makes it all that much harder to compete.

But also harder to compare coaches of the 1950's to coaches of the 21st century.

I think that the 'parity' of the past would only favor Rice. Maybe I'm wrong. The separation between the 'haves' and 'have nots' keeps growing. The 'professionalization' of college football only hurts the 'academic' schools.

(12-09-2022 11:14 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I think that the 'parity' of the past would only favor Rice. Maybe I'm wrong. The separation between the 'haves' and 'have nots' keeps growing. The 'professionalization' of college football only hurts the 'academic' schools.

Perhaps the parity was one thing that enabled us to be relevant then.

For sure.

Since Jess, only 4 Rice coaches have won 40% of their games or more--Goldsmith, Hatfield, Graham, and Bailiff.

I still think that Rice has shot itself in the foot too many times with stupid policies and decisions to be able to say that it can't be done at Rice. It can't be done by being stupid.

(12-09-2022 02:00 PM)Ourland Wrote:  This is what irks me. The best football coach in the history of Rice football, who coached in the most favorable environment in the history of Rice football, wasn't even able to win more than 53% of his games. Neely had highs and lows just like Hatfield and Bailiff, our two best coaches since he left. Even Fred Goldsmith only had one winning season out of five.

I want to know how anyone here reasonably expects for Rice to finally find the coach who will consistently win over .500 of his games for his entire tenure, no matter how long or short it may be, taking into account the deck that is stacked against Rice in today's college football environment of NIL, transfer portal, skyrocketing athletics budgets, and kids who no longer care about education first? I don't think some of you really have any idea how incredibly hard it is for Rice to win against this backdrop.

If Neely couldn't do it back then, and if Ken Hatfield and David Bailiff couldn't do it today, what are the realistic chances of it happening at all? Think about it.

Simple.

College football has changed numerous times over the years.... and we aren't competing under the scenarios that they competed under. There is no way we would be 0.500 in the current iteration of the SWC, but that isn't where we are competing. No, they don't care that much about education as an aggregate, but most of the top 20 schools in football are also in the top 50 in APR. Many in the top 10.

If you were a grad transfer.... wouldn't Rice look attractive? Heck, if you'd just spent the last three years doing mop-up duty at UT or Alabama... or perhaps better, Tech or any of a number of 'lesser' academic schools... wouldn't Rice look attractive? Kids don't come in caring as much about their degree... but after three years of mostly riding the bench at a powerhouse school, you damn well better have a degree.

Every school in the country has guys who could make it at Rice and start for us. Especially given transfer rules, we should be on the radar of every one of them. We aren't because we don't even try during the initial period... but because they are good students, we should. We should even keep in contact with them (through the academics side) after they start BECAUSE of the probability of transfers.... either pre or post graduate. Sure, the coaches still have to want them... but that is a whole other level of recruiting where our academics becomes an advantage.

That's an example of doing things differently, while maintaining 'who we are'.