(10-09-2015 08:54 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: In my opinion David Bailiff at Rice is overpaid compared to the rest of the league for his middling results built almost entirely on beating the very worst teams in college football. $800,000+ per for what we're getting does not look like a very good return after 9 seasons of the only Div I coach still with a losing record at the same school for that many years.
GoodOwl and I disagree a little. I look at the 2nd link and see that Bailiff is 79th best paid coach in FBS (more likely 86th, since I think USC, BYU, Wake, Vandy, Tulsa, Pitt, and SMU all pay their coaches more). Rice's final ranking in Massey/Sagarin have been around that spot (or better) since 2011: 2011(92/89), 2012 (79/83), 2013 (57/69), and 2014 (69/69). So to me, Rice is getting almost exactly what it pays for, arguably slightly more than it pays for.
Things look roughly the same when you compare Bailiff to the rest of CUSA. He's gone 13-4 against CUSA since the start of 2013 (including the 2013 CUSA championship game), or 17-8 if you want to go back to the start of 2012. However, if you look at the quality of the wins/losses, things look less rosy. In 3 of the 4 losses since 2013, Rice was destroyed and Bailiff has a number of narrow wins against not-great CUSA teams. Marshall is 15-3 and LaTech 9-8 since the start of 2013, for reference.
I think there is a very strong argument that Rice needs to get more bang-for-the buck than it does with Bailiff. I also agree with anyone who would say that our new AD would probably do a great job choosing a new coach. However, I think GoodOwl's characterization of Bailiff is incorrect. I don't see any support for the argument that, within CUSA, Coach Bailiff and Rice have achieved "middling results." He's basically earning close to what his results the last 3-4 years suggest he should be earning. He's not great, but he's not terrible (because as GoodOwl noted, he typically beats the terrible teams).
(10-09-2015 10:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: (10-09-2015 09:42 AM)goherd24herdfans Wrote: I was high on bailiff, but i was shocked, and said as much, about how over rated Rice was this season. Everyone was talking about them competing for the west division. And i cant even see a bowl game. 5-7 was my prediction
If you take a peek at our board, there is a sizable and unfortunately, vocally stifling contingent who apparently still think Bailiff is the cat's meow, and regularly engage in shouting down the few who are willing to suggest the Emperor has no clothes after 9 seasons. That is the same myopia apparently afflicting some decision makers at Rice from going further all in on sports.
I completely disagree with GoodOwl's characterization on this as well. GoodOwl and a few other posters are so virulently anti-Bailiff, that they can't see him for what he is ... a perfectly
average football coach. He turns below-average resources (relative to the rest of FBS) into averagish results. There are a few folks on our board who are strongly pro-Bailiff who think Bailiff is "the cat's meow." There are a few others like GoodOwl that think he's basically the worst football coach in FBS (though a decent human being). There is a vocal group like myself who think the anti-Bailiff folks are wrong, because basically all empirical evidence shows that Bailiff is an average coach, but also think the pro-Bailiff folks are wrong, because again, basically all empirical evidence shows that he's pretty average. And there is a huge majority of posters that mostly stay out of the fray (who probably exist between the extremes).
