Bailiff was extended through 2016 in March 2013, so a few months after the 2012 campaign began. His original extension in Feb 2009, as you noted, put him under contract through the 2013 season.

(09-11-2016 04:11 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Bailiff was extended through 2016 in March 2013, so a few months after the 2012 campaign began. His original extension in Feb 2009, as you noted, put him under contract through the 2013 season.

If Bailiff still had three full seasons (2014, 2015, 2016) left on his contract after the 2013 season, why on earth was JK extending his contract?!? Because of the conference championship in a depleted C-USA? Bailiff wasn't going anywhere. It should require a better standing offer from another school presented by Bailiff to the AD for the AD to even consider an extension. He just had an extension, based on dubious merit... and frankly, seasons like 2013 should be the norm, not the exception.

JK created this mess, so he needs to fix it.

If you don't fire him, you don't have to buy him out.

Reassign him to some sort of a position where his positive attributes can still benefit the program. He could be the assistant AD in charge of getting Rice athletes on local afternoon TV shows. There are actually things that he can do. Not worth $1 million a year, but not worth zero either. And that way, you don't have to eat the buyout all at once.

Bring in a coach whose demonstrated skill set is doing more with less. They exist. We will end up running whatever offensive and defensive scheme he feels best.

If I were an AD, my football coach would have a 5-year rollover contract--with a $100,000 buyout for either party. That is attractive to the young coach who wants to have enough success to attract a better offer. I'm fine with that.

The Coaches Hot Seat ranking certainly seems to have a better read on the Rice Administration than I do. In 2015, they kept Bailiff in the "Safe for Now" category all season. (They were right, I was wrong.) This year, he started the season near the bottom (the safe side) of the "Edge of Hot Seat" classification. He has moved up each week, but is still "Edge of Hot Seat" and only 33 overall on the list. (Currently, 30 coaches are classified as "Hot Seat" meaning serious risk of being fired during or after the season.)

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CoachesHotSeatRanking.htm

In a typical year, less than a dozen coaches are fired mid-season. The ranking of 33 suggests that this is an unlikely outcome for Bailiff.

(09-11-2016 09:28 AM)FresnoTXOwl Wrote:  With the current personnel (i.e a lot of RB talent, not as much WR talent) it seems more option would make sense, if any of the QBs could run it. German at least probably has the speed to do so.

I go back to previous discussions about the wisdom of moving athletes from the offensive side of the ball to the defensive side. I think that it makes a lot of sense to do so. If Rice moved about 3 players in that manner, I feel confident that they could reduce big plays substantially, even if the offensive side would suffer. I'm sure that with fourteen players on the field for defense, the scores would be closer, even if they'd struggle with eight on the field for offense.

I wonder how much of the 'hot seat' question relates to success, and the penchant of a school/administration to demand more? I think it's a lot... which is why it would make such a statement, though I'm not really in favor of it on principle.

I agree with the 'reassign' aspects (if that is where we go). I think David has a lot of very valuable qualities... they just aren't enough to push us over the hump.

(09-12-2016 09:10 AM)temchugh Wrote:  The Coaches Hot Seat ranking certainly seems to have a better read on the Rice Administration than I do. In 2015, they kept Bailiff in the "Safe for Now" category all season. (They were right, I was wrong.) This year, he started the season near the bottom (the safe side) of the "Edge of Hot Seat" classification. He has moved up each week, but is still "Edge of Hot Seat" and only 33 overall on the list. (Currently, 30 coaches are classified as "Hot Seat" meaning serious risk of being fired during or after the season.)

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/CoachesHotSeatRanking.htm

In a typical year, less than a dozen coaches are fired mid-season. The ranking of 33 suggests that this is an unlikely outcome for Bailiff.

After Baylor hangs 70+ on us Friday, I'd imagine he'd rocket up that list.

(09-11-2016 02:18 PM)temchugh Wrote:  Based on the last news release regarding a Bailiff contract extension, his current contract runs through the 2018 season:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...extension/

Thus, the buy out at the end of this year would be $1.8 million, max. In most contracts, the buy out is not 100% of future salary.

The University invests >$20 million in the athletics dept every year, presumably because they find it to be beneficial to the University. Specifically, it is good marketing for the University. I have a hard time believing that the University would decide to retain Bailiff at the end of the season because the cost of replacing him is too high. (However, I was very confident that they would replace him at the end of last season, so what do I know.)

There seems to be almost universal agreement that you can't run a football program with a coach on the last year of his contract, so you would have to extend him or buy him out at the end of next season anyway.

But the point here is we're paying him ~$1MM a year. His buy-out has to be more than 50% of the $$$ remaining. Plus, we have to pay another coach, likely to the tune of at least $1MM in order to recruit players for the long-term. A 5% increase to the athletics budget for a single line item is going to be carefully scrutinized. Unless Rice's version of T. Boone Pickens steps up and foots the bill, I can't see how this comes out of the general operating budget.

(09-12-2016 08:27 PM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 02:18 PM)temchugh Wrote:  Based on the last news release regarding a Bailiff contract extension, his current contract runs through the 2018 season:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...extension/

Thus, the buy out at the end of this year would be $1.8 million, max. In most contracts, the buy out is not 100% of future salary.

The University invests >$20 million in the athletics dept every year, presumably because they find it to be beneficial to the University. Specifically, it is good marketing for the University. I have a hard time believing that the University would decide to retain Bailiff at the end of the season because the cost of replacing him is too high. (However, I was very confident that they would replace him at the end of last season, so what do I know.)

There seems to be almost universal agreement that you can't run a football program with a coach on the last year of his contract, so you would have to extend him or buy him out at the end of next season anyway.

But the point here is we're paying him ~$1MM a year. His buy-out has to be more than 50% of the $$$ remaining. Plus, we have to pay another coach, likely to the tune of at least $1MM in order to recruit players for the long-term. A 5% increase to the athletics budget for a single line item is going to be carefully scrutinized. Unless Rice's version of T. Boone Pickens steps up and foots the bill, I can't see how this comes out of the general operating budget.

Just curious, but are you speaking with some kind of inside information, general knowledge of how college coaching contracts are structured, or just guessing, for the underlined part? The actual terms of Coach Bailiff's contract, particularly the buyout, seem to be one piece of information that no one on the Parliament has ever suggested they have.

(09-12-2016 10:53 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2016 08:27 PM)Riceman2004 Wrote:  

(09-11-2016 02:18 PM)temchugh Wrote:  Based on the last news release regarding a Bailiff contract extension, his current contract runs through the 2018 season:

http://www.cbssports.com/college-footbal...extension/

Thus, the buy out at the end of this year would be $1.8 million, max. In most contracts, the buy out is not 100% of future salary.

The University invests >$20 million in the athletics dept every year, presumably because they find it to be beneficial to the University. Specifically, it is good marketing for the University. I have a hard time believing that the University would decide to retain Bailiff at the end of the season because the cost of replacing him is too high. (However, I was very confident that they would replace him at the end of last season, so what do I know.)

There seems to be almost universal agreement that you can't run a football program with a coach on the last year of his contract, so you would have to extend him or buy him out at the end of next season anyway.

But the point here is we're paying him ~$1MM a year. His buy-out has to be more than 50% of the $$$ remaining. Plus, we have to pay another coach, likely to the tune of at least $1MM in order to recruit players for the long-term. A 5% increase to the athletics budget for a single line item is going to be carefully scrutinized. Unless Rice's version of T. Boone Pickens steps up and foots the bill, I can't see how this comes out of the general operating budget.

Just curious, but are you speaking with some kind of inside information, general knowledge of how college coaching contracts are structured, or just guessing, for the underlined part? The actual terms of Coach Bailiff's contract, particularly the buyout, seem to be one piece of information that no one on the Parliament has ever suggested they have.

although it seems likely no one on this board does know the terms of the buy-ou( or at least will not break confidences by sharing), having heard(read?) at least one poster(WG, not the coach) say JK's "hands were tied', it is a reasonable inference that $$ is a likely issue.

Having said that , a million +/- now to buy him out would be a bargain to get some hope for actual progress in the program

If the pirate is no longer coaching at Washington State at the end of the year, I think he would be the ideal replacement for DB based on this press conference alone:

https://mobile.twitter.com/AaronQ13Fox/s...52/video/1

(09-11-2016 10:04 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Paging Drew Mehringer. If you watched any of the social media videos from UH last year, he looks and sounds like Tom Herman Jr., is a Rice grad, and this is probably the last point on his career path (currently OC at Big 10 Rutgers) where Rice has a chance.

I often browse this forum because my wife works at Rice, and we make a couple games a year. Plan to be there Friday. Anyway, Drew did a great job for us. I think his move to Rutgers cost us signing Tyrie Cleveland (who switched to Florida on signing day). But he also helped secure the pledge of four-star Courtney Lark and the transfer of four-star Ra'Shaad Sampples. His strengths are recruiting and relating to players. Obviously, he never called plays for us, but he's a Rice grad, former QB, and came across sharp in interviews. Rutgers fans could speak about their early glimpse of his offense. My only concern would be if he's been in the business long enough to put together a competent and experienced staff. But if given the chance, I think he'll make a fine head coach one day.

Reassign Bailiff within the football operations - essentially a 'head coach mentor' and hire a coach with connections and massive potential/upside.

(09-14-2016 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Reassign Bailiff within the football operations - essentially a 'head coach mentor' and hire a coach with connections and massive potential/upside.

Why?

Frankly, we've paid him enough. Its time we sever ties and let someone else start afresh.

Yeah, if you're going to fire a coach, don't keep him hanging around the program. Rarely ends well.

(09-14-2016 10:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-14-2016 10:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Reassign Bailiff within the football operations - essentially a 'head coach mentor' and hire a coach with connections and massive potential/upside.

Why?

Frankly, we've paid him enough. Its time we sever ties and let someone else start afresh.

Motivational clapping for the rest of the athletic department?

people are certainly welcome to disagree, but since many other Universities have done just that, it's hardly out in left field as an idea.

A coach inexperienced in certain aspects may appreciate the insight, and no matter what happens, we have to pay him SOMETHING.

The question in my mind is whether we pay a departing coach (just pulling numbers from what others have reported) $1mm to not do his entire job... 800k to do nothing... or 600k to do nothing and 400k to do something we value that he has experience at and an alacrity for.

I think the reality is that they'd rather coach somewhere else... but then the choice to leave is theirs and they get nothing from us. You work out an arrangement based on THAT supposition. I seriously doubt they'd intentionally tarnish Rice and thus their own reputation.

If 'motivational clapping' is a necessity and something the replacement isn't known for and is worth more than the difference between buying them out and paying them off, why wouldn't you consider it?

You can't turn the page when the page is clapping loudly and motivationally in your face. If we were to retain him in any capacity, he must not be part of the football program.

(09-14-2016 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  people are certainly welcome to disagree, but since many other Universities have done just that, it's hardly out in left field as an idea.

A coach inexperienced in certain aspects may appreciate the insight, and no matter what happens, we have to pay him SOMETHING.

The question in my mind is whether we pay a departing coach (just pulling numbers from what others have reported) $1mm to not do his entire job... 800k to do nothing... or 600k to do nothing and 400k to do something we value that he has experience at and an alacrity for.

I think the reality is that they'd rather coach somewhere else... but then the choice to leave is theirs and they get nothing from us. You work out an arrangement based on THAT supposition. I seriously doubt they'd intentionally tarnish Rice and thus their own reputation.

If 'motivational clapping' is a necessity and something the replacement isn't known for and is worth more than the difference between buying them out and paying them off, why wouldn't you consider it?

Major Applewhite. He has name recognition, energy, and has done well. He would be able to recruit. He knows Rice, and Rice knows him.

(09-14-2016 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  people are certainly welcome to disagree, but since many other Universities have done just that, it's hardly out in left field as an idea.

What university has a "head coach mentor"? Sure, universities have roles for former coaches that are essentially fundraising roles (see Gary Pinkel currently, Mack Brown a few years ago), but I'm not aware of any universities that have a position whose only responsibility is to directly advise the head coach. Of course, I could be wrong.