Interesting discussion. Not sure I have any answers, but some comments and perceptions.

1. A med school or law school would go a long way to avoiding the Div. III perception being discussed here. That's my opinion, nothing more or less. That is not on Bailiff, or the athletic department in general. He didn't sign on with that (D-3) in mind.

2. My impression is that the makeup of the current student body is a lot more Div. III than P5. Meaning it's a lot more like Wash. U or Emory or University of Chicago. There is no SWC influence on any current recruiting. The kids come here because they've got off the chart SAT's and our athletics department has no influence on their decision to attend Rice. The attendance issue and the number of young alumni at the game says so. (Caveat - I know there are exceptions. My impression though, and it may be erroneous, is that the 'average' makeup of the student body is significantly different that it was when I was a freshman in 1978 in a number of areas. And I think the demise of the single sex residential college hasn't helped either).

2a. Let's be honest, few if any of us came to Rice expecting to attend football games of an NCAA powerhouse. However, I played high school football (and track, and Legion baseball) and I thought supporting sports was important. I felt like there were a fair number of students like that when I was in school. I'm sure students like that still exist at Rice, but my gut tells me the number is smaller. I could relate to our football and basketball players who were normal guys and pretty smart in the bargain. Again, sure that applies to some students today as well, but for some reason I don't believe it's a widely held position.

there's a lot more to discuss, but the bottom line is it would all be observations, suppositions . . . . and no definitive answers.

I will say that none of the situation is either the players' or Bailiff's fault. And I think both have taken steps to try and address the situation. Bailiff 'getting Rice' and recruiting to keep grad rates up and having high character guys generally speaking is exactly what he needs to do. But going back to my tongue in cheek #nobodybutUrbanMeyer comments . . . . coaches at Alabama and Ohio State have neither the time nor inclination to worry about the support of the student body or what they need to do to 'earn' it.

I doubt the Buckeye's and Crimson Tide are helping the freshmen move in at those schools. (I'm glad our guys do).

(10-26-2015 12:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Interesting discussion. Not sure I have any answers, but some comments and perceptions.

1. A med school or law school would go a long way to avoiding the Div. III perception being discussed here. That's my opinion, nothing more or less. That is not on Bailiff, or the athletic department in general. He didn't sign on with that (D-3) in mind.

2. My impression is that the makeup of the current student body is a lot more Div. III than P5. Meaning it's a lot more like Wash. U or Emory or University of Chicago. There is no SWC influence on any current recruiting. The kids come here because they've got off the chart SAT's and our athletics department has no influence on their decision to attend Rice. The attendance issue and the number of young alumni at the game says so. (Caveat - I know there are exceptions. My impression though, and it may be erroneous, is that the 'average' makeup of the student body is significantly different that it was when I was a freshman in 1978 in a number of areas. And I think the demise of the single sex residential college hasn't helped either).

2a. Let's be honest, few if any of us came to Rice expecting to attend football games of an NCAA powerhouse. However, I played high school football (and track, and Legion baseball) and I thought supporting sports was important. I felt like there were a fair number of students like that when I was in school. I'm sure students like that still exist at Rice, but my gut tells me the number is smaller. I could relate to our football and basketball players who were normal guys and pretty smart in the bargain. Again, sure that applies to some students today as well, but for some reason I don't believe it's a widely held position.

there's a lot more to discuss, but the bottom line is it would all be observations, suppositions . . . . and no definitive answers.

I will say that none of the situation is either the players' or Bailiff's fault. And I think both have taken steps to try and address the situation. Bailiff 'getting Rice' and recruiting to keep grad rates up and having high character guys generally speaking is exactly what he needs to do. But going back to my tongue in cheek #nobodybutUrbanMeyer comments . . . . coaches at Alabama and Ohio State have neither the time nor inclination to worry about the support of the student body or what they need to do to 'earn' it.

I doubt the Buckeye's and Crimson Tide are helping the freshmen move in at those schools. (I'm glad our guys do).

I agree with 95% of your post but all coaches definitely think about student support. There was that controversy at Bama a few years ago about fraternities not using their tickets. Vance Bedford (UT DC) is always taking shots at fans in his press appearances. Also, Georgia Tech hosts an international football clinic every year like we do.

One of my friends, who is a mainstream female at Rice, once told a tour group that she was showing around that Rice had a women's basketball team but not a men's team. The only reason she knew about the women's team is because of someone in her year at her college. If you know so little about your school's athletic program, "You're Fired!!" in the words of Trump.

(10-26-2015 12:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Interesting discussion. Not sure I have any answers, but some comments and perceptions.

1. A med school or law school would go a long way to avoiding the Div. III perception being discussed here. That's my opinion, nothing more or less. That is not on Bailiff, or the athletic department in general. He didn't sign on with that (D-3) in mind.

2. My impression is that the makeup of the current student body is a lot more Div. III than P5. Meaning it's a lot more like Wash. U or Emory or University of Chicago. There is no SWC influence on any current recruiting. The kids come here because they've got off the chart SAT's and our athletics department has no influence on their decision to attend Rice. The attendance issue and the number of young alumni at the game says so. (Caveat - I know there are exceptions. My impression though, and it may be erroneous, is that the 'average' makeup of the student body is significantly different that it was when I was a freshman in 1978 in a number of areas. And I think the demise of the single sex residential college hasn't helped either).

2a. Let's be honest, few if any of us came to Rice expecting to attend football games of an NCAA powerhouse. However, I played high school football (and track, and Legion baseball) and I thought supporting sports was important. I felt like there were a fair number of students like that when I was in school. I'm sure students like that still exist at Rice, but my gut tells me the number is smaller. I could relate to our football and basketball players who were normal guys and pretty smart in the bargain. Again, sure that applies to some students today as well, but for some reason I don't believe it's a widely held position.

there's a lot more to discuss, but the bottom line is it would all be observations, suppositions . . . . and no definitive answers.

I will say that none of the situation is either the players' or Bailiff's fault. And I think both have taken steps to try and address the situation. Bailiff 'getting Rice' and recruiting to keep grad rates up and having high character guys generally speaking is exactly what he needs to do. But going back to my tongue in cheek #nobodybutUrbanMeyer comments . . . . coaches at Alabama and Ohio State have neither the time nor inclination to worry about the support of the student body or what they need to do to 'earn' it.

I doubt the Buckeye's and Crimson Tide are helping the freshmen move in at those schools. (I'm glad our guys do).

Agreed with everything here. I'm at U of Chicago now and the relationship to sports here is very close to what I experienced at Rice, i.e.a DIII vibe.

The "silver lining" here, if it can be called that, is that playing non-peer schools in sports, when you've long been perceived as irrelevant and no one on campus cares, has no negative effect on your reputation. I think we're in that boat now. Playing directional non-peer schools certainly does nothing to improve our academic standing, but it surely doesn't hurt it either -- our sports are just off the radar.

I have a thought on this whole student support issue. CDC and I discussed this several times, he was in complete agreement and started to make some changes in this direction, but left before moving very far on it. Ranger Rick was not interested. I have not had a chance to visit the issue with JK, but want to do so at some point, particularly since I am now coaching the women (we lost to UTSA Saturday morning, 22-0 in the rain, but they are the best team in our league and we started 8 rookies playing their first game, so I'm not too disappointed).

The idea is that one way to reinvigorate student interest is to push club sports and intramurals. Make club sports essentially equivalent to a D-III program, the way the Ivies do--and Stanford does. That was actually sort of implied by McKinsey in their discussion of the advantages of D-III. It's relatively cheap, and it would greatly expand the support base. Give club sports and intramurals participants a sense of ownership and participation in the athletic program. They will then support you while at Rice and after graduation. For example, on Saturday our team thought it would be fun to go to the football game and sit in the rain and watch (they were already wet and muddy), and they invited the UTSA players to join them, although I'm not sure how many of the latter did so.

There have been suggestions at times that Rice should have more of an Ivy League type of athletic program. What people may not realize is that truly doing so would require an increase in spending for non-revenue and club sports. I recall seeing Princeton women's rugby play Penn State for the national championship in Tampa in about 2000. Princeton had a pregame alumni event in a tent with about 200 attending (lots of folks retire from Wall Street to Florida), and they had about a 5-person coaching staff (including two spotting in the press box and talking to others with headsets down on the field) with student trainers/managers and medical personnel. Similar for Penn State, except for the alumni event. We don't support club sports that way.

(10-26-2015 12:34 AM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 12:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Interesting discussion. Not sure I have any answers, but some comments and perceptions.

1. A med school or law school would go a long way to avoiding the Div. III perception being discussed here. That's my opinion, nothing more or less. That is not on Bailiff, or the athletic department in general. He didn't sign on with that (D-3) in mind.

2. My impression is that the makeup of the current student body is a lot more Div. III than P5. Meaning it's a lot more like Wash. U or Emory or University of Chicago. There is no SWC influence on any current recruiting. The kids come here because they've got off the chart SAT's and our athletics department has no influence on their decision to attend Rice. The attendance issue and the number of young alumni at the game says so. (Caveat - I know there are exceptions. My impression though, and it may be erroneous, is that the 'average' makeup of the student body is significantly different that it was when I was a freshman in 1978 in a number of areas. And I think the demise of the single sex residential college hasn't helped either).

2a. Let's be honest, few if any of us came to Rice expecting to attend football games of an NCAA powerhouse. However, I played high school football (and track, and Legion baseball) and I thought supporting sports was important. I felt like there were a fair number of students like that when I was in school. I'm sure students like that still exist at Rice, but my gut tells me the number is smaller. I could relate to our football and basketball players who were normal guys and pretty smart in the bargain. Again, sure that applies to some students today as well, but for some reason I don't believe it's a widely held position.

there's a lot more to discuss, but the bottom line is it would all be observations, suppositions . . . . and no definitive answers.

I will say that none of the situation is either the players' or Bailiff's fault. And I think both have taken steps to try and address the situation. Bailiff 'getting Rice' and recruiting to keep grad rates up and having high character guys generally speaking is exactly what he needs to do. But going back to my tongue in cheek #nobodybutUrbanMeyer comments . . . . coaches at Alabama and Ohio State have neither the time nor inclination to worry about the support of the student body or what they need to do to 'earn' it.

I doubt the Buckeye's and Crimson Tide are helping the freshmen move in at those schools. (I'm glad our guys do).

I agree with 95% of your post but all coaches definitely think about student support. There was that controversy at Bama a few years ago about fraternities not using their tickets. Vance Bedford (UT DC) is always taking shots at fans in his press appearances. Also, Georgia Tech hosts an international football clinic every year like we do.

One of my friends, who is a mainstream female at Rice, once told a tour group that she was showing around that Rice had a women's basketball team but not a men's team. The only reason she knew about the women's team is because of someone in her year at her college. If you know so little about your school's athletic program, "You're Fired!!" in the words of Trump.

That's depressing but not too hard to imagine. It's only gotten worse in the last 7 years. Rice still has a lot of kids that care about football, they just usually come in with their own team to cheer for and think the Rice brand is so poor they don't bother to go to games. Not many incoming students grow up as Rice fans and our conference doesn't give them a reason to care. I've had students look at me like I'm crazy when I told them (fill in the blank) was a conference game for us, but they all know the score when we play UT or A&M or Baylor. I also knew kids who would sit on the OC lounge at Sid and watch UT or UGA or OU instead of going to the Rice game.

On the other hand students who never went to a single basketball game in 4 years knew who Arsalan was when he was picked up by the Rockets this offseason. I don't think this is completely on the student body, I'd guess 1/4 will never care about sports in their life but that still leaves 3000 kids we can get to games.

(10-26-2015 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a thought on this whole student support issue. CDC and I discussed this several times, he was in complete agreement and started to make some changes in this direction, but left before moving very far on it. Ranger Rick was not interested. I have not had a chance to visit the issue with JK, but want to do so at some point, particularly since I am now coaching the women (we lost to UTSA Saturday morning, 22-0 in the rain, but they are the best team in our league and we started 8 rookies playing their first game, so I'm not too disappointed).

The idea is that one way to reinvigorate student interest is to push club sports and intramurals. Make club sports essentially equivalent to a D-III program, the way the Ivies do--and Stanford does. That was actually sort of implied by McKinsey in their discussion of the advantages of D-III. It's relatively cheap, and it would greatly expand the support base. Give club sports and intramurals participants a sense of ownership and participation in the athletic program. They will then support you while at Rice and after graduation. For example, on Saturday our team thought it would be fun to go to the football game and sit in the rain and watch (they were already wet and muddy), and they invited the UTSA players to join them, although I'm not sure how many of the latter did so.

There have been suggestions at times that Rice should have more of an Ivy League type of athletic program. What people may not realize is that truly doing so would require an increase in spending for non-revenue and club sports. I recall seeing Princeton women's rugby play Penn State for the national championship in Tampa in about 2000. Princeton had a pregame alumni event in a tent with about 200 attending (lots of folks retire from Wall Street to Florida), and they had about a 5-person coaching staff (including two spotting in the press box and talking to others with headsets down on the field) with student trainers/managers and medical personnel. Similar for Penn State, except for the alumni event. We don't support club sports that way.

I think that is a good way to get students involved with the athletic program but from my experience a lot of the club players A) didn't care about going to football games or B) had their club games scheduled at the same time. I know men's rugby almost always had a conflict with football and most of those guys would have gone to the football games.

I'm not sure why we don't shut down the entire campus on gameday. Close the library. Close the servery. RAs shouldn't be hosting all day movie marathons like I know they did on Saturday (which probably had more students than our 25 person student section). We have to make game days an event. 99% of college campuses you absolutely can't avoid knowing there is a home game, but at Rice sometimes you wouldn't know unless the lights are on in the stadium.

(10-26-2015 06:24 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 05:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have a thought on this whole student support issue. CDC and I discussed this several times, he was in complete agreement and started to make some changes in this direction, but left before moving very far on it. Ranger Rick was not interested. I have not had a chance to visit the issue with JK, but want to do so at some point, particularly since I am now coaching the women (we lost to UTSA Saturday morning, 22-0 in the rain, but they are the best team in our league and we started 8 rookies playing their first game, so I'm not too disappointed).

The idea is that one way to reinvigorate student interest is to push club sports and intramurals. Make club sports essentially equivalent to a D-III program, the way the Ivies do--and Stanford does. That was actually sort of implied by McKinsey in their discussion of the advantages of D-III. It's relatively cheap, and it would greatly expand the support base. Give club sports and intramurals participants a sense of ownership and participation in the athletic program. They will then support you while at Rice and after graduation. For example, on Saturday our team thought it would be fun to go to the football game and sit in the rain and watch (they were already wet and muddy), and they invited the UTSA players to join them, although I'm not sure how many of the latter did so.

There have been suggestions at times that Rice should have more of an Ivy League type of athletic program. What people may not realize is that truly doing so would require an increase in spending for non-revenue and club sports. I recall seeing Princeton women's rugby play Penn State for the national championship in Tampa in about 2000. Princeton had a pregame alumni event in a tent with about 200 attending (lots of folks retire from Wall Street to Florida), and they had about a 5-person coaching staff (including two spotting in the press box and talking to others with headsets down on the field) with student trainers/managers and medical personnel. Similar for Penn State, except for the alumni event. We don't support club sports that way.

I think that is a good way to get students involved with the athletic program but from my experience a lot of the club players A) didn't care about going to football games or B) had their club games scheduled at the same time. I know men's rugby almost always had a conflict with football and most of those guys would have gone to the football games.

I'm not sure why we don't shut down the entire campus on gameday. Close the library. Close the servery. RAs shouldn't be hosting all day movie marathons like I know they did on Saturday (which probably had more students than our 25 person student section). We have to make game days an event. 99% of college campuses you absolutely can't avoid knowing there is a home game, but at Rice sometimes you wouldn't know unless the lights are on in the stadium.

I called these Hostage Tailgates where they closed the servery and forces everyone to go to the stadium.All it did was piss people off and build resentment against the football program.

Interest has to come from within. It cannot and should not be forced

It appears many reasons for poor turnout by students

Other things going on campus
Not aware
Didn't come to Rice to see FB like back in SWC era; don't view it as part of college experience
Despite internal marketing, too many Intl students who don't care/understand
Start time of game matters
Weather (sitting in sun, rain, cold, etc.)
Following others, Snowball effect. If nobody is there than atmosphere is bad, why would I want to go? That is boring.
Don't care about C-USA schools, no connection

All of these things above are true and factors but I think a couple of them are larger than others.

The C-USA championship game student section was full in awful weather (someone a couple weeks ago had great pic of that) and bigger games at HRS (e.g. UCLA, Bayou Bucket, etc.) had student section filled. All examples in DB era.

Be a good team and play good teams in games with relevance (e.g., championships or teams people care about) and people will come. People don't want to watch Rice coming off blowout losses to old SWC foes and then play directional school x. That is true not just for students but all other segments of population that both JK and Parliament wants to see at HRS whether younger alums, H-Town residents, etc. Right now, you have old alums like on Parliament and parents in the stands. That's it. At very beginning of season we are relevant b/c of the optimism of season still ahead and at end-of-season (Marshall) we were relevant for one game. In between, you have a Rice team that had been blown-out by teams that all stakeholders recognize playing against teams that noone cares about. Be seen as a good team playing a team people can relate to such as UCLA or Houston (vs. WKU) and that matters to get butts in seats.

As a side, most schools are dealing with this as well. Losing natural rival games in exchange for unnatural new conference games has hurt attendance (esp students) unless game has some relevance (e.g. first place). We are not immune to macro trend but at Rice with small student body, it is more pronounced. Reason #56 on why being in C-USA is frog in boiling pot of water to irrelevance for Rice.

(10-25-2015 03:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Regarding Stanford having better support from students as compared to Rice, I imagine it's a combo of 3 things:

1) population (almost twice the # of undergrads)
2) playing in a P-5 conference
3) being VERY successful during the past few years (4 11 or 12 win seasons in a row from 2010-2013 with 3 BCS bowls).

Yes, but how did Stanford get to number 3. Granted that for the near future we will never catch up on number 1 and 2. They had a 1-11 team. In the past, except for isolated years here and there, Stanford has not had sustained excellence in football. They got a coach who was energetic, talented, and hungry. One who set high standards for himself and his players. A coach can make all the difference in the world. (Look at Michigan this year.) I do not think Harbaugh could have taken Rice to such lofty standards (because as people have stated, Stanford has some advantages we lack), but had we selected Harbaugh (I understand he applied for the job) or someone similar, I am convinced we would be in a much happier situation today. Same with WG. WG sets demands high performance and will not tolerate sloppiness. He was hungry and energetic when he got here, and he still is hungry. If you want a football program like our baseball program, we need someone who holds himself and his players to high standards of performance.

If you look at high performing organizations, they demand a lot. They learn from their mistakes. They improve. They do not simply clap and repeatedly say we'll do better the next time. High performing organizations actually make an effort to do better the next time, and they usually do better the next time.

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  What some of us fear is that Rice football is slowly receding into irrelevance and that there is little time left to fix it.

FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This to me is a very perceptive post. A native southerner, I have lived outside the south most of my life since graduation from Rice in 1972. For a long time, I was an alumnus interviewer. I was surprised over the years that many students in the non-south areas where I lived seemed to equate Rice with schools I would consider second tier. And I think our continued affiliation with schools which are third tier or lower academically, many of which the casual observer has never heard, reinforces this impression.

I wonder how much our loss in rankings has to do with our continually diminishing position in endowments. When I applied, Rice had the sixth largest endowment, and the largest per student. I do not know where it is now, but last I looked, it had about the 20th largest endowment and was lower in per student endowments. Not at all sure why our endowment did not keep up with gains at other universities. I would imagine most of the growth at other universities came not from contributions but from increases in asset value.

Just some random thoughts. But I thought IllinoisOwl's post was great.

(10-25-2015 10:13 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  What some of us fear is that Rice football is slowly receding into irrelevance and that there is little time left to fix it.

FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This post, more than any I can remember, summarize my feelings -- actually, fears -- about the way I perceive Rice to be fading, fading in perceived importance and relevance in the city, the state and the region. It ought to be framed and sent to JK, President Leebron, and every member of the Board of Trustees.

I agree. The posts on this page and in this thread are the very reasons I get overly worked up on this board when it comes to football and the present head coach. I don't think he means to, I think he's doing the best he can--and his best is not nearly good enough for what this school needs--but right now, I feel this coach is hurting Rice in so many ways just by being who he is as a football coach.

If we were in a P5 today, it probably wouldn't matter if he was our coach since we'd be getting the big check and playing some of our peers in-conference. That's how it was in the SWC days, and we didn't step up when given chances back then to invest and improve, which is what got us to fall all the way down to the near-bottom where we are now. We are still doing the same things that got us to fall, and yes, it drives me crazy, as I feel it helps to devalue the University and in some measure deflates the value of our degrees in aggregate. We aren't Case Western--no one expects them to compete in Div I football (do they even have a team?) We hold ourselves up as a model of excellence and then we add a big qualifier for football and it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth and comes across as insincere. If we admitted publicly we have no intention of competing against the best then at least the message would be consistent with what some perceive to be the results.

I don't want us to drop football but if this is how it's going to be then I agree with some posters who already have said it's just not worth it. To me, every activity or program on campus should either contribute to the overall excellence of the University or be scrapped if its not heading there. I realize others are happy with starting various programs and just having them be jobs programs in perpetuity. That doesn't work for me, but it works for lots of people around the country, it seems.

As far as being hungry, it's hard to be that when you appear to be overeating and hand-clapping all the time. I guess that's also why Rhoades appeals so much to me. Unlike what Owl69/70 has posted about having no idea what the current football coach's plan is, I have a clear idea of who our basketball coach is, what he expects, how he's going to do things, what his plan is and how his players will over-perform and steal wins they aren't supposed to from better programs every year even if his current players aren't as highly touted. It hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt it will. It is hard to see that kind of hand-picked coach by our AD and try to accept that he doesn't want to get the same results from the same kind of coach he picks for our football team.

For whatever reason, JK has not felt it necessary to change yet in football. If he's watching these games, I wonder how much his stomach is turning if at all. Then again, he has a Stanford degree, and so maybe can rationalize things here and comfort himself with the fact that this is just a short phase of his life before he moves on to greener pastures, like CDC did. (He can point to the EZF as his big accomplishment at Rice, and probably to Rhoades as well. The rest he can just tell his future employers 'Well, it's Rice, you know, there's just no way to help them overcome themselves. The Rice Way is stronger than anyone can imagine.' We can't, or at least it seems that way, and that's how I read some of ya'll's posts above in these threads.

There's just not enough lipstick for this pig. We need a bull. Yesterday.

(10-26-2015 07:56 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:13 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  What some of us fear is that Rice football is slowly receding into irrelevance and that there is little time left to fix it.

FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This post, more than any I can remember, summarize my feelings -- actually, fears -- about the way I perceive Rice to be fading, fading in perceived importance and relevance in the city, the state and the region. It ought to be framed and sent to JK, President Leebron, and every member of the Board of Trustees.

I agree. The posts on this page and in this thread are the very reasons I get overly worked up on this board when it comes to football and the present head coach. I don't think he means to, I think he's doing the best he can--and his best is not nearly good enough for what this school needs--but right now, I feel this coach is hurting Rice in so many ways just by being who he is as a football coach.

If we were in a P5 today, it probably wouldn't matter if he was our coach since we'd be getting the big check and playing some of our peers in-conference. That's how it was in the SWC days, and we didn't step up when given chances back then to invest and improve, which is what got us to fall all the way down to the near-bottom where we are now. We are still doing the same things that got us to fall, and yes, it drives me crazy, as I feel it helps to devalue the University and in some measure deflates the value of our degrees in aggregate. We aren't Case Western--no one expects them to compete in Div I football (do they even have a team?) We hold ourselves up as a model of excellence and then we add a big qualifier for football and it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth and comes across as insincere. If we admitted publicly we have no intention of competing against the best then at least the message would be consistent with what some perceive to be the results.

I don't want us to drop football but if this is how it's going to be then I agree with some posters who already have said it's just not worth it. To me, every activity or program on campus should either contribute to the overall excellence of the University or be scrapped if its not heading there. I realize others are happy with starting various programs and just having them be jobs programs in perpetuity. That doesn't work for me, but it works for lots of people around the country, it seems.

As far as being hungry, it's hard to be that when you appear to be overeating and hand-clapping all the time. I guess that's also why Rhoades appeals so much to me. Unlike what Owl69/70 has posted about having no idea what the current football coach's plan is, I have a clear idea of who our basketball coach is, what he expects, how he's going to do things, what his plan is and how his players will over-perform and steal wins they aren't supposed to from better programs every year even if his current players aren't as highly touted. It hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt it will. It is hard to see that kind of hand-picked coach by our AD and try to accept that he doesn't want to get the same results from the same kind of coach he picks for our football team.

For whatever reason, JK has not felt it necessary to change yet in football. If he's watching these games, I wonder how much his stomach is turning if at all. Then again, he has a Stanford degree, and so maybe can rationalize things here and comfort himself with the fact that this is just a short phase of his life before he moves on to greener pastures, like CDC did. (He can point to the EZF as his big accomplishment at Rice, and probably to Rhoades as well. The rest he can just tell his future employers 'Well, it's Rice, you know, there's just no way to help them overcome themselves. The Rice Way is stronger than anyone can imagine.' We can't, or at least it seems that way, and that's how I read some of ya'll's posts above in these threads.

There's just not enough lipstick for this pig. We need a bull. Yesterday.

Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

(10-26-2015 08:09 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

We had this exact same argument about Braun... then suddenly a wild Rhoades appears!

(10-26-2015 08:09 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 07:56 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:13 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  What some of us fear is that Rice football is slowly receding into irrelevance and that there is little time left to fix it.

FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This post, more than any I can remember, summarize my feelings -- actually, fears -- about the way I perceive Rice to be fading, fading in perceived importance and relevance in the city, the state and the region. It ought to be framed and sent to JK, President Leebron, and every member of the Board of Trustees.

I agree. The posts on this page and in this thread are the very reasons I get overly worked up on this board when it comes to football and the present head coach. I don't think he means to, I think he's doing the best he can--and his best is not nearly good enough for what this school needs--but right now, I feel this coach is hurting Rice in so many ways just by being who he is as a football coach.

If we were in a P5 today, it probably wouldn't matter if he was our coach since we'd be getting the big check and playing some of our peers in-conference. That's how it was in the SWC days, and we didn't step up when given chances back then to invest and improve, which is what got us to fall all the way down to the near-bottom where we are now. We are still doing the same things that got us to fall, and yes, it drives me crazy, as I feel it helps to devalue the University and in some measure deflates the value of our degrees in aggregate. We aren't Case Western--no one expects them to compete in Div I football (do they even have a team?) We hold ourselves up as a model of excellence and then we add a big qualifier for football and it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth and comes across as insincere. If we admitted publicly we have no intention of competing against the best then at least the message would be consistent with what some perceive to be the results.

I don't want us to drop football but if this is how it's going to be then I agree with some posters who already have said it's just not worth it. To me, every activity or program on campus should either contribute to the overall excellence of the University or be scrapped if its not heading there. I realize others are happy with starting various programs and just having them be jobs programs in perpetuity. That doesn't work for me, but it works for lots of people around the country, it seems.

As far as being hungry, it's hard to be that when you appear to be overeating and hand-clapping all the time. I guess that's also why Rhoades appeals so much to me. Unlike what Owl69/70 has posted about having no idea what the current football coach's plan is, I have a clear idea of who our basketball coach is, what he expects, how he's going to do things, what his plan is and how his players will over-perform and steal wins they aren't supposed to from better programs every year even if his current players aren't as highly touted. It hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt it will. It is hard to see that kind of hand-picked coach by our AD and try to accept that he doesn't want to get the same results from the same kind of coach he picks for our football team.

For whatever reason, JK has not felt it necessary to change yet in football. If he's watching these games, I wonder how much his stomach is turning if at all. Then again, he has a Stanford degree, and so maybe can rationalize things here and comfort himself with the fact that this is just a short phase of his life before he moves on to greener pastures, like CDC did. (He can point to the EZF as his big accomplishment at Rice, and probably to Rhoades as well. The rest he can just tell his future employers 'Well, it's Rice, you know, there's just no way to help them overcome themselves. The Rice Way is stronger than anyone can imagine.' We can't, or at least it seems that way, and that's how I read some of ya'll's posts above in these threads.

There's just not enough lipstick for this pig. We need a bull. Yesterday.

Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

I have said how I would do it it many times: Football and Men's Basketball are Marketing Expenses for the University. To me, it is merely an accounting issue--re-categorizing the expenses into their proper categories as University Marketing and Investments (kind of like R&D would be).

It's "impossible" to go to the moon, too. Glad you and your ilk weren't around to "advise" JFK and NASA back then. Frankly, I'm tired of your constant trolling and your blowing hot air that it's impossible. Your attitude appears to be a loser mentality, and to me at least, a loser mentality has no place at Rice, but maybe it does for you. Fix the accounting and there's the money. It's marketing--end of story.

Whether it's the current head football coach, or another who performs the same as he has for about a decade, the performance is not consistent with what the University requires for excellence in the given circumstances we find ourselves in--unless we have no real intention of changing those circumstances, which is how it's finally starting to appear to me. What we are doing in football is not good enough for what we need to be doing in football. We are no longer in the position to just graduate players and care-take our way to a football program. We haven't been since 1994 9and perhaps a little longer). We have still apparently not come out of our collective slumber as to that reality.

We do not need someone to maintain the status quo. We need someone to move the chains quickly and decisively with a clear plan of action that several posters have repeated they do not think this coach has or ever will have. The task is similar to what a guy like Theo Epstein had to accomplish in Boston (which he did, several times) and now in Chicago (which I am pretty confident he will also do there.) You don't get it done by trading lightly and changing the window curtains. You clean house, set a completely different tone, and don't accept excuses for ten years. That appears to be what Rhoades is doing. Even when his teams lose, they are highly watchable, likable, and most importantly for the University, entertaining to all fans, whether Rice grads or not.

Unless the University thinks marketing expenses are wasteful and unnecessary (and to me that is a foolish attitude for something so important in today's competitive college marketplace) there's your money for your laundry list. I trust JK to pick a different head football coach of his own who can get more done than we have seen for the past decade. It's his job (and he would hopefully have the knowledge) to say what the name would be. But I'd have bet RUOwls and a staff of his choosing could have gotten better results over the last decade in this conference with these schedules than what we have seen, for starters. At the very least, I think we'd all have a clear idea of what his plan was and how he was going about accomplishing it.

(10-26-2015 08:37 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:09 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 07:56 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:13 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This post, more than any I can remember, summarize my feelings -- actually, fears -- about the way I perceive Rice to be fading, fading in perceived importance and relevance in the city, the state and the region. It ought to be framed and sent to JK, President Leebron, and every member of the Board of Trustees.

I agree. The posts on this page and in this thread are the very reasons I get overly worked up on this board when it comes to football and the present head coach. I don't think he means to, I think he's doing the best he can--and his best is not nearly good enough for what this school needs--but right now, I feel this coach is hurting Rice in so many ways just by being who he is as a football coach.

If we were in a P5 today, it probably wouldn't matter if he was our coach since we'd be getting the big check and playing some of our peers in-conference. That's how it was in the SWC days, and we didn't step up when given chances back then to invest and improve, which is what got us to fall all the way down to the near-bottom where we are now. We are still doing the same things that got us to fall, and yes, it drives me crazy, as I feel it helps to devalue the University and in some measure deflates the value of our degrees in aggregate. We aren't Case Western--no one expects them to compete in Div I football (do they even have a team?) We hold ourselves up as a model of excellence and then we add a big qualifier for football and it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth and comes across as insincere. If we admitted publicly we have no intention of competing against the best then at least the message would be consistent with what some perceive to be the results.

I don't want us to drop football but if this is how it's going to be then I agree with some posters who already have said it's just not worth it. To me, every activity or program on campus should either contribute to the overall excellence of the University or be scrapped if its not heading there. I realize others are happy with starting various programs and just having them be jobs programs in perpetuity. That doesn't work for me, but it works for lots of people around the country, it seems.

As far as being hungry, it's hard to be that when you appear to be overeating and hand-clapping all the time. I guess that's also why Rhoades appeals so much to me. Unlike what Owl69/70 has posted about having no idea what the current football coach's plan is, I have a clear idea of who our basketball coach is, what he expects, how he's going to do things, what his plan is and how his players will over-perform and steal wins they aren't supposed to from better programs every year even if his current players aren't as highly touted. It hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt it will. It is hard to see that kind of hand-picked coach by our AD and try to accept that he doesn't want to get the same results from the same kind of coach he picks for our football team.

For whatever reason, JK has not felt it necessary to change yet in football. If he's watching these games, I wonder how much his stomach is turning if at all. Then again, he has a Stanford degree, and so maybe can rationalize things here and comfort himself with the fact that this is just a short phase of his life before he moves on to greener pastures, like CDC did. (He can point to the EZF as his big accomplishment at Rice, and probably to Rhoades as well. The rest he can just tell his future employers 'Well, it's Rice, you know, there's just no way to help them overcome themselves. The Rice Way is stronger than anyone can imagine.' We can't, or at least it seems that way, and that's how I read some of ya'll's posts above in these threads.

There's just not enough lipstick for this pig. We need a bull. Yesterday.

Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

I have said how I would do it it many times: Football and Men's Basketball are Marketing Expenses for the University. To me, it is merely an accounting issue--re-categorizing the expenses into their proper categories as University Marketing and Investments (kind of like R&D would be).

It's "impossible" to go to the moon, too. Glad you and your ilk weren't around to "advise" JFK and NASA back then. Frankly, I'm tired of your constant trolling and your blowing hot air that it's impossible. Your attitude appears to be a loser mentality, and to me at least, a loser mentality has no place at Rice, but maybe it does for you. Fix the accounting and there's the money. It's marketing--end of story.

Whether it's the current head football coach, or another who performs the same as he has for about a decade, the performance is not consistent with what the University requires for excellence in the given circumstances we find ourselves in--unless we have no real intention of changing those circumstances, which is how it's finally starting to appear to me. What we are doing in football is not good enough for what we need to be doing in football. We are no longer in the position to just graduate players and care-take our way to a football program. We haven't been since 1994 9and perhaps a little longer). We have still apparently not come out of our collective slumber as to that reality.

We do not need someone to maintain the status quo. We need someone to move the chains quickly and decisively with a clear plan of action that several posters have repeated they do not think this coach has or ever will have. The task is similar to what a guy like Theo Epstein had to accomplish in Boston (which he did, several times) and now in Chicago (which I am pretty confident he will also do there.) You don't get it done by trading lightly and changing the window curtains. You clean house, set a completely different tone, and don't accept excuses for ten years. That appears to be what Rhoades is doing. Even when his teams lose, they are highly watchable, likable, and most importantly for the University, entertaining to all fans, whether Rice grads or not.

Unless the University thinks marketing expenses are wasteful and unnecessary (and to me that is a foolish attitude for something so important in today's competitive college marketplace) there's your money for your laundry list. I trust JK to pick a different head football coach of his own who can get more done than we have seen for the past decade. It's his job (and he would hopefully have the knowledge) to say what the name would be. But I'd have bet RUOwls and a staff of his choosing could have gotten better results over the last decade in this conference with these schedules than what we have seen, for starters. At the very least, I think we'd all have a clear idea of what his plan was and how he was going about accomplishing it.

As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

(10-26-2015 08:23 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:09 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

We had this exact same argument about Braun... then suddenly a wild Rhoades appears!

Exactly, Antarius. Good point. Nobody said Urban Meyer. Mike Rhoades was just a hungry up-and-comer until we hired him. But he appears to be a bull, no doubt. When I watch Rhoades' Rice videos or his teams play, it make me want to go work out myself. He inspires me, at least. Don't let cr11's constant Straw-man bogusness distract the issue.

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

You seem to be saying you're satisfied with floating around in the 75 to 125 range, because things might get worse with a change. Doesn't really compute for me. On the other hand, you might be saying things will get better than we have seen for nine years. Doesn't really compute for me. What am I missing?

(10-26-2015 09:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:20 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As somebody who was around then, I can tell you there was nobody who thought it was impossible to go to the moon. There were some who felt the timetable was too ambitious, but it was a race, and somebody would win, and it had better be us. There were those who thought the benefits did not outweigh the costs, and what I heard for two decades or more was that we could feed XXXXX people for the money we were spending on sending a couple of guys to the moon. Eventually that view prevailed.

I would bet on RUowls, too. I'm not so crazy for whoever is behind door #3. You get RU's name on the dotted line and I will be happy.

I like Rhoades, and think this hire has a lot of potential to turn around our MBB program. But as some wise guy said, potential means you ain't done it yet. It might be better to wait a few years before installing him in the Rice HOF. I think we liked Braun in his first year, too, and Willis in his.

Not sure what Bailiff's weight has to do with it, unless we are just looking for things to criticize. If it is important, I am sure JK will eliminate the heavies from consideration, like that guy at WashSt.

Hand clapping is just a way of encouraging the troops. It could mean "C'mon now, get your head in the game" or "shake it off, do better next time"or it could mean "job well done". It doesn't always have to mean the latter. Don't mistake it for a standing O at the opera.

Someone mentioned we need a "hungry coach." When I see Rhoades (and I'm sure he eats a lot too, with all the exercising he appears to do) digging through the mud and mixing it up together with his players, I am inspired by a man who appears to be doing everything he can to radically change things for his program. I realize he is younger as well.

Now, OG did it when he was older--too old some had said back when we hired him. Yet he also was able to inspire and over-achieve and won a National Championship in baseball at Rice. At Rice. Difficult? Yes Impossible? Apparently not. So it shows there is more than one way. Which way is Bailiff's? Few can really say.

It seems clear that Coach Bailiff inspires several people on this board. To those posters, Bailiff is all a football coach should be. Other posters see him for what he has shown us these past years: a so-so coach with a few good qualities and an awful lot of mediocre to failing ones, taking advantage of a terrible schedule to make himself look far better than he really is. Still others state they are confused and mystified about just what Bailiff is doing.

I'm sure Rhoades and OG clap as well. I'll bet it comes across a bit different.

Simple Q for you, OO: Who would you pick out of the two (Rhoades and Bailiff) if you could only bet on one? Which one is more worth your money if you could only have one?

I am sure you are well aware that "hungry" in this context does not refer to appetite. Young and hungry coaches are hired every year. Some succeed, some don't. Being young and hungry does not necessarily win ballgames or build programs. Most of them end up out on their rear in 3-5 years.

Yes, I have seen the OG clap, and not for a play well done. Like ypu say, you can tell the difference. Well, I can, anyway.

Bet on one to what? Win a national title? I'd go with Rhoades on that. Much easier in basketball, with its playoff. Right now Rhodes looks good, but it is way too soon to be installing him in the HOF. It's kind of like Obama's Peace Prize. Maybe a bit premature?

Like I said, get me RU or somebody proven, like that fat guy Leach or Skinny Meyer, and I will take the gamble with you, but young and hungry coaches are a dime a dozen and worth every penny.

My problem is not so much with your step one, fire Bailiff, my problem is with your step two, which seems to be mainly prayer.

I think there are things to be lost in a wild gamble. Some of you see no risk of loss if we bet the ranch on a 20-1 shot and it doesn't come in. I disagree.

It's the old bird in the hand versus the hundred in the air.

Maybe I misunderstand your plan. If so, correct me. be specific.

(10-26-2015 08:37 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:09 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 07:56 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:13 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 08:28 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  FIFY

Out of all the schools in the country, we are the only one in a conference completely devoid of any peer institutions. There will be a price to be paid for this - we already seem to be paying it, actually, given the downward trend of our rankings over the past decade-plus. And I don't think we're anywhere near the floor.

Rice is already sailing into a significant headwind in trying to stay in the top 20 without a med school or law school. And now, the vanishing linkages of our brand in the public consciousness with peer schools, plus every linkage of our brand with Middle Western International Dominion Tech State, are combining for death by a thousand cuts.

A school like ours is expected - by the public, by its students, alumni, would-be applicants, etc. - to strive for excellence in all areas and engage in genuine competition with its peers. However, in the one arena most visible to all these groups, Rice isn't doing that.

I just don't think it is possible to make Rice people - or people who might be disposed to care about Rice, like potential new fans in Houston, smart HS kids, etc. - care about competing in C-USA. Why would they? Why should they?

At best, Rice is essentially telling its supporters and potential supporters to eat this spinach for X years in the hope that things will get better someday for some future generation. Not exactly an inspiring marketing pitch. I don't blame today's Rice kids for not caring, in the main, about attending C-USA games, and I don't blame any kid today considering Rice who ultimately decides to go to Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Army/Navy/Air Force, an Ivy, or any other school where part of one's college experience can be participating, directly or vicariously, in athletic competition with one's peers. And as more and more decisions get made in this vein, the negative results will redound to Rice.

Increasing irrelevance for Rice athletics will lead to increasing irrelevance for Rice.

This post, more than any I can remember, summarize my feelings -- actually, fears -- about the way I perceive Rice to be fading, fading in perceived importance and relevance in the city, the state and the region. It ought to be framed and sent to JK, President Leebron, and every member of the Board of Trustees.

I agree. The posts on this page and in this thread are the very reasons I get overly worked up on this board when it comes to football and the present head coach. I don't think he means to, I think he's doing the best he can--and his best is not nearly good enough for what this school needs--but right now, I feel this coach is hurting Rice in so many ways just by being who he is as a football coach.

If we were in a P5 today, it probably wouldn't matter if he was our coach since we'd be getting the big check and playing some of our peers in-conference. That's how it was in the SWC days, and we didn't step up when given chances back then to invest and improve, which is what got us to fall all the way down to the near-bottom where we are now. We are still doing the same things that got us to fall, and yes, it drives me crazy, as I feel it helps to devalue the University and in some measure deflates the value of our degrees in aggregate. We aren't Case Western--no one expects them to compete in Div I football (do they even have a team?) We hold ourselves up as a model of excellence and then we add a big qualifier for football and it looks like we are talking out of both sides of our mouth and comes across as insincere. If we admitted publicly we have no intention of competing against the best then at least the message would be consistent with what some perceive to be the results.

I don't want us to drop football but if this is how it's going to be then I agree with some posters who already have said it's just not worth it. To me, every activity or program on campus should either contribute to the overall excellence of the University or be scrapped if its not heading there. I realize others are happy with starting various programs and just having them be jobs programs in perpetuity. That doesn't work for me, but it works for lots of people around the country, it seems.

As far as being hungry, it's hard to be that when you appear to be overeating and hand-clapping all the time. I guess that's also why Rhoades appeals so much to me. Unlike what Owl69/70 has posted about having no idea what the current football coach's plan is, I have a clear idea of who our basketball coach is, what he expects, how he's going to do things, what his plan is and how his players will over-perform and steal wins they aren't supposed to from better programs every year even if his current players aren't as highly touted. It hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt it will. It is hard to see that kind of hand-picked coach by our AD and try to accept that he doesn't want to get the same results from the same kind of coach he picks for our football team.

For whatever reason, JK has not felt it necessary to change yet in football. If he's watching these games, I wonder how much his stomach is turning if at all. Then again, he has a Stanford degree, and so maybe can rationalize things here and comfort himself with the fact that this is just a short phase of his life before he moves on to greener pastures, like CDC did. (He can point to the EZF as his big accomplishment at Rice, and probably to Rhoades as well. The rest he can just tell his future employers 'Well, it's Rice, you know, there's just no way to help them overcome themselves. The Rice Way is stronger than anyone can imagine.' We can't, or at least it seems that way, and that's how I read some of ya'll's posts above in these threads.

There's just not enough lipstick for this pig. We need a bull. Yesterday.

Wow... Goodowl instead of blowing hot air all the time how about you tell us how we will find said "bull" and what your estimated salary for him will be. Also tell me where we will find the money to fire Bailiff a AND increase the salaries of all the future assistants.

I can also sit here on the message board and complain that Bailiff needs to be gone and we need to hire Urban Meyer immediately but I'd rather present feasible ideas instead of being like an Aggie message board.

I have said how I would do it it many times: Football and Men's Basketball are Marketing Expenses for the University. To me, it is merely an accounting issue--re-categorizing the expenses into their proper categories as University Marketing and Investments (kind of like R&D would be).

It's "impossible" to go to the moon, too. Glad you and your ilk weren't around to "advise" JFK and NASA back then. Frankly, I'm tired of your constant trolling and your blowing hot air that it's impossible. Your attitude appears to be a loser mentality, and to me at least, a loser mentality has no place at Rice, but maybe it does for you. Fix the accounting and there's the money. It's marketing--end of story.

Whether it's the current head football coach, or another who performs the same as he has for about a decade, the performance is not consistent with what the University requires for excellence in the given circumstances we find ourselves in--unless we have no real intention of changing those circumstances, which is how it's finally starting to appear to me. What we are doing in football is not good enough for what we need to be doing in football. We are no longer in the position to just graduate players and care-take our way to a football program. We haven't been since 1994 9and perhaps a little longer). We have still apparently not come out of our collective slumber as to that reality.

We do not need someone to maintain the status quo. We need someone to move the chains quickly and decisively with a clear plan of action that several posters have repeated they do not think this coach has or ever will have. The task is similar to what a guy like Theo Epstein had to accomplish in Boston (which he did, several times) and now in Chicago (which I am pretty confident he will also do there.) You don't get it done by trading lightly and changing the window curtains. You clean house, set a completely different tone, and don't accept excuses for ten years. That appears to be what Rhoades is doing. Even when his teams lose, they are highly watchable, likable, and most importantly for the University, entertaining to all fans, whether Rice grads or not.

Unless the University thinks marketing expenses are wasteful and unnecessary (and to me that is a foolish attitude for something so important in today's competitive college marketplace) there's your money for your laundry list. I trust JK to pick a different head football coach of his own who can get more done than we have seen for the past decade. It's his job (and he would hopefully have the knowledge) to say what the name would be. But I'd have bet RUOwls and a staff of his choosing could have gotten better results over the last decade in this conference with these schedules than what we have seen, for starters. At the very least, I think we'd all have a clear idea of what his plan was and how he was going about accomplishing it.

Where did I mention that it was impossible? Sure, I would also like Rice to spend a bunch of it's endowment $$$ on Rice athletics and call it marketing. If we are going to dream about wild departures from our 100+ years of Universiry operation then that sounds like a great plan. However it doesn't seem like that is going to happen so I prefer to work within our constraints to find a way to win. JFK devoted a large percentage of the national budget to NASA to get it done (compared to current levels) and I'm sure if we had a similar increase in budget JK wouldn't hesitate to make a move.