(04-20-2021 05:09 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:27 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 08:55 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm glad he's being encouraged to pursue other interests. His coaching hires in the three biggest sports have all been suspect. None of them have panned out so far, and we don't need him around if Bloomgren struggles to bowl eligibility this year. Kids are leaving our programs in droves. The gentleman who posted the on-line petition said it best. I agree that something is very wrong in the athletics department.

Yet another gross exaggeration (if not outright falsehood). Do tell what kids are leaving our programs in droves, especially relative to other school programs?

We lost five when Rhoades left as basketball coach, and we continue to lose our best two players at the end of almost every season. The same is true in football. If Rice were a great place to be an athlete, these kids would be staying, even the graduate transfers.

I would expect there to be more turnover at places that can't provide nearly as good an education as Rice, but that isn't the case. The education is outstanding, so there must be something very wrong with the athletics experience on campus.

We do NOT lose our best players in football almost every season. Stop the B.S. As for basketball, we don't lose more than other G5 programs. Unfortunately, thanks to the NCAA, this is the sad state of college basketball. In baseball, we've lost only a handful of players the past 4 - 5 years, despite the sad decline in the program, and every single one of those was do to either playing time or academics. What T&F guys have left the program "in droves"? What women in any of our sports have left the program "in droves"?

We’ve lost our best player in football two of the last four years (Blaze and Calvin Anderson) at the very least... Not “almost every year”-but 50% of years on a small sample isn’t encouraging!

(04-20-2021 05:17 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 05:09 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 02:27 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 09:03 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 08:55 AM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm glad he's being encouraged to pursue other interests. His coaching hires in the three biggest sports have all been suspect. None of them have panned out so far, and we don't need him around if Bloomgren struggles to bowl eligibility this year. Kids are leaving our programs in droves. The gentleman who posted the on-line petition said it best. I agree that something is very wrong in the athletics department.

Yet another gross exaggeration (if not outright falsehood). Do tell what kids are leaving our programs in droves, especially relative to other school programs?

We lost five when Rhoades left as basketball coach, and we continue to lose our best two players at the end of almost every season. The same is true in football. If Rice were a great place to be an athlete, these kids would be staying, even the graduate transfers.

I would expect there to be more turnover at places that can't provide nearly as good an education as Rice, but that isn't the case. The education is outstanding, so there must be something very wrong with the athletics experience on campus.

We do NOT lose our best players in football almost every season. Stop the B.S. As for basketball, we don't lose more than other G5 programs. Unfortunately, thanks to the NCAA, this is the sad state of college basketball. In baseball, we've lost only a handful of players the past 4 - 5 years, despite the sad decline in the program, and every single one of those was do to either playing time or academics. What T&F guys have left the program "in droves"? What women in any of our sports have left the program "in droves"?

We’ve lost our best player in football two of the last four years (Blaze and Calvin Anderson) at the very least... Not “almost every year”-but 50% of years on a small sample isn’t encouraging!

And both those guys graduated before transferring out for their final year. That's a heck of a lot different than losing them after one or two seasons to seek greener pastures. That's NOT "leaving our programs in droves".

(04-19-2021 07:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:50 PM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 09:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

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

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

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

I agree. This is almost by definition, unsustainable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karlgaard hired the best WBB coach Rice has ever had.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a coach to do? Fix that.

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

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

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

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

My point in that paragraph could not have been clearer, with the point about institutional support. Athletic program success isn’t bottom up, it is top down, and at the top of our pyramid is a gifted academician who by life, experience and world view considers college sports as, at best, a nuisance.

Schools led like that are tied in ropes unless one or 2 trustees, with gravitas, courage and wisdom force a new direction.

Look, much of what you've been saying is spot on, but stop exaggerating things. Leebron does NOT consider college sports as a nuisance. That is just blatantly untrue. No, he has never been into athletics himself, and he's not an avid sports fan as the majority of us here are. However, he is an enthusiastic supporter of Rice athletics-- more so than any President we have had since Hackerman in the 1970s-- and he absolutely understands the importance of Rice athletics to building strong alumni ties and future donation streams.

As for the BOT, as I and others have said, the majority on the Board are strong supporters of Rice athletics, and more than a few were student-athletes themselves, including both the former (Tudor) and current (Rob Ladd) Board chairmen.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe what I have written and have confidence in my source material.

(04-12-2021 09:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  To me, 'getting' Rice means something different. Bailiff did better than other coaches have by a long shot, but he was still in a completely different zip code from Rice (the University). He was perhaps more like Rice in the 1960s or 70's.

Bailiff "got Rice" in the sense that he understood some of the unique (and quirky) elements of the university. But as you say, I don't think he "got" how Rice has to go about winning football games. His idea seemed to be to out-recruit the opposition. CUSA got watered down to the extent that his approach appeared to work for a brief period. But I don't think it was sustainable, and he didn't sustain it. Rice has to recruit well, and to recruit a special kind of student-athlete, to narrow the pure athleticism gap as much as possible, and then use the superior intelligence of that talent to implement and execute a contrarian approach, particularly on offense. We have to put enough of our best athletes on defense, in order to be sound there, then out-scheme and out-execute the other team on offense.

Major Applewhite said something to me once that I thought was interesting. I asked him how the 2006 team had managed to pull victory from the jaws of defeat so many times (of interest to me because over 50+ years Rice teams had seemed more adept at the exact opposite). His reply, "Our players are so much smarter than our opponents that we can make in-game adjustments that our opponents can't counter."

I think too many Rice coaches have failed to exploit that advantage, in many cases perhaps because the players were smarter than the coaches. That's a problem that would not exist with coaches like RUOwls.

I'll agree that Bailiff "got Rice". However, he was simply a horrendous in-game coach and ran the program like a country club. I still don't understand how his recruiting went so precipitously downhill immediately after our championship 2012 season. The reverse should have occurred.

I don’t think Bailiff was Vince Lombardi and he certainly deserved to be let go by the end of his tenure, but if you look at the relative level of support that Bloomgren receives from the administration vs. what Bailiff received, it’s night and day. For example, compare the number of analysts, recruiting staff, etc..

That said, Bailiff hired some good assistants, even toward the end of his tenure... Guys like Frank Okam, AJ Steward, Sam Bennett, etc... All former Bailiff GA’s who’ve gone on to bigger and better things. He was good at spotting young coaches.. It was the retreads that he brought in that were the problems on staff.

Exactly right. Bloomgren is working with much more in resources than Bailiff. David Bailiff would probably still be our coach if he had been given as much.

(04-20-2021 08:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'll agree that Bailiff "got Rice". However, he was simply a horrendous in-game coach and ran the program like a country club. I still don't understand how his recruiting went so precipitously downhill immediately after our championship 2012 season. The reverse should have occurred.

I believe the championship came in 2013, but point well taken. Add in the completion of the Patterson Center, and recruiting should clearly have gotten better.

I would have a slightly different take on Bailiff. There are recruiting coaches, who win by out-recruiting others; preparation coaches, who win by out-scheming and out-preparing others; and game coaches, who win by making better in-game decisions than others. Bailiff was clearly a recruiting coach, and that's a hard way to win at Rice. Some of his in-game decisions were questionable, but there was generally some understandable logic behind them. Where Bailiff feel short, in my opinion, was as a preparation coach. His teams played hard but were sloppy. He can win that way at Texas State when a Barrick Nealy drops into his lap to play QB, and he can win that way at Commerce, but a preparation coach what I think you have to be to win at Rice.

One reason that RUOwls's comments appeal to many on here is that they pretty clearly establish that he would be a preparation coach, just as he was as a player.

Another comment is that I get the impression that Bloomgren's teams are more disciplined, but I'm not sure they play as hard for himnas they did for Bailiff.

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are recruiting coaches, who win by out-recruiting others; preparation coaches, who win by out-scheming and out-preparing others; and game coaches, who win by making better in-game decisions than others.

Which kind is Bloomgren? Oh, wait a minute...you said "win", right? Never mind. I be be much happier when we are are discussing how Bloom wins.

But I join you and Walt in wondering what happened after 2013. It's like we got nearly to the top of the ladder and then fell off.

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-20-2021 08:04 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I'll agree that Bailiff "got Rice". However, he was simply a horrendous in-game coach and ran the program like a country club. I still don't understand how his recruiting went so precipitously downhill immediately after our championship 2012 season. The reverse should have occurred.

I believe the championship came in 2013, but point well taken. Add in the completion of the Patterson Center, and recruiting should clearly have gotten better.

I would have a slightly different take on Bailiff. There are recruiting coaches, who win by out-recruiting others; preparation coaches, who win by out-scheming and out-preparing others; and game coaches, who win by making better in-game decisions than others. Bailiff was clearly a recruiting coach, and that's a hard way to win at Rice. Some of his in-game decisions were questionable, but there was generally some understandable logic behind them. Where Bailiff feel short, in my opinion, was as a preparation coach. His teams played hard but were sloppy. He can win that way at Texas State when a Barrick Nealy drops into his lap to play QB, and he can win that way at Commerce, but a preparation coach what I think you have to be to win at Rice.

One reason that RUOwls's comments appeal to many on here is that they pretty clearly establish that he would be a preparation coach, just as he was as a player.

Another comment is that I get the impression that Bloomgren's teams are more disciplined, but I'm not sure they play as hard for himnas they did for Bailiff.

Haven't seen any evidence of Bloomgren being a better in-game coach, unfortunately. At least Bailiff had some impressive comebacks to beat the likes of Kansas and Memphis, among others. Bloomgren's been much better on defense but significantly worse on offense thus far. Of course, when Bailiff didn't have a good QB his offense stunk too. Bloomgren seems to have teams better prepared but not good in adjusting during games.

Not sure what happened to David's recruiting. Some of it could've been C-USA becoming more and more watered down. Whatever the case, overall momentum was lost pretty quickly after the Hawaii Bowl win (and some were already complaining then about playing lower tier bowls and blowing out the Fresh St's).

(04-21-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are recruiting coaches, who win by out-recruiting others; preparation coaches, who win by out-scheming and out-preparing others; and game coaches, who win by making better in-game decisions than others.

Which kind is Bloomgren? Oh, wait a minute...you said "win", right? Never mind. I be be much happier when we are are discussing how Bloom wins.
But I join you and Walt in wondering what happened after 2013. It's like we got nearly to the top of the ladder and then fell off.

Some former football players will tell you that JK took money away from football (and former baseball players will tell you the same about baseball) and put it somewhere else. If the somewhere else was women's sports, then clearly there are results to show it. But that also prompts the question of whether we should be investing more in sports with upside revenue potential.

During the years that I worked stats at Rice, I also helped out Ted Nance for some games at UH. Being close to both programs was night and day. Harry Fouke (UH AD and Rice alum, where he won the Bob Quin award) used to talk to me about the differences in philosophy at the two programs. And it was interesting to watch the differences between Guy V and Yeoman. Both were very adept at finding diamonds in the rough and turning them into highly regarded players--neither Akeem nor Drexler was as highly regarded coming in, for example, as they were when they left. But they were very different types. Yeoman was very much a game coach, probably more so than any other coach I have ever known. Guy V was a practice and preparation coach. His idea of a great practice was lock the gym doors, don't call any fouls, and the last 5 standing start on Saturday. It was like northeastern inner-city street ball, and it developed players the same way that street ball does.

I'd be much happier beating Fresno than most of CUSA
1) Cali is a hotbed for recruiting and there is a dearth of intermediate steps for high academic, good but not great athletes like what we get. Pac-12 is a VERY solid academic conference, and then you quickly drop to Cali's version of UH and lower academically. Not a lot in between (like us)
2) Fresno is occasionally nationally relevant

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Some of his in-game decisions were questionable, but there was generally some understandable logic behind them.

'splain McGuffie-up-the-middle ad nauseum and its logic to us. We no unnerstan.

(04-21-2021 11:48 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Some of his in-game decisions were questionable, but there was generally some understandable logic behind them.

'splain McGuffie-up-the-middle ad nauseum and its logic to us. We no unnerstan.

That one wasn't. But at least we handed him the ball, which got him to the line a bit quicker than pitching it back to him.

We always played McGuffie out of position, IMO. He should have a slot back, receiving short dump-off passes and running reverses instead of pounding the middle. But in that version of "pound the rock" he was our (undersized) pounder.

(04-20-2021 06:55 PM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 07:25 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(04-19-2021 06:50 PM)bigowlsfan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 09:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

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

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

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

I agree. This is almost by definition, unsustainable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(04-09-2021 04:41 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Karlgaard hired the best WBB coach Rice has ever had.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's a coach to do? Fix that.

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

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

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

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

My point in that paragraph could not have been clearer, with the point about institutional support. Athletic program success isn’t bottom up, it is top down, and at the top of our pyramid is a gifted academician who by life, experience and world view considers college sports as, at best, a nuisance.

Schools led like that are tied in ropes unless one or 2 trustees, with gravitas, courage and wisdom force a new direction.

Look, much of what you've been saying is spot on, but stop exaggerating things. Leebron does NOT consider college sports as a nuisance. That is just blatantly untrue. No, he has never been into athletics himself, and he's not an avid sports fan as the majority of us here are. However, he is an enthusiastic supporter of Rice athletics-- more so than any President we have had since Hackerman in the 1970s-- and he absolutely understands the importance of Rice athletics to building strong alumni ties and future donation streams.

As for the BOT, as I and others have said, the majority on the Board are strong supporters of Rice athletics, and more than a few were student-athletes themselves, including both the former (Tudor) and current (Rob Ladd) Board chairmen.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I believe what I have written and have confidence in my source material.

and as they say, watch what they do, not what they say. My son, without prompting, said it best 3 yrs ago (he grew up Rice)-isn't obvious that they are not trying.

(04-21-2021 10:58 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 08:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  There are recruiting coaches, who win by out-recruiting others; preparation coaches, who win by out-scheming and out-preparing others; and game coaches, who win by making better in-game decisions than others.

Which kind is Bloomgren? Oh, wait a minute...you said "win", right? Never mind. I be be much happier when we are are discussing how Bloom wins.
But I join you and Walt in wondering what happened after 2013. It's like we got nearly to the top of the ladder and then fell off.

Some former football players will tell you that JK took money away from football (and former baseball players will tell you the same about baseball) and put it somewhere else. If the somewhere else was women's sports, then clearly there are results to show it. But that also prompts the question of whether we should be investing more in sports with upside revenue potential.

During the years that I worked stats at Rice, I also helped out Ted Nance for some games at UH. Being close to both programs was night and day. Harry Fouke (UH AD and Rice alum, where he won the Bob Quin award) used to talk to me about the differences in philosophy at the two programs. And it was interesting to watch the differences between Guy V and Yeoman. Both were very adept at finding diamonds in the rough and turning them into highly regarded players--neither Akeem nor Drexler was as highly regarded coming in, for example, as they were when they left. But they were very different types. Yeoman was very much a game coach, probably more so than any other coach I have ever known. Guy V was a practice and preparation coach. His idea of a great practice was lock the gym doors, don't call any fouls, and the last 5 standing start on Saturday. It was like northeastern inner-city street ball, and it developed players the same way that street ball does.

Just curious on the designated money comment above. I've heard that the money donated to the Rice Baseball Roost area and new batting barn was substantially higher than what was spent and those "extra" dollars were spent or utilized elsewhere. Does anyone know if this is the case. I would think that if someone donated dollars to be used for a specific sports facility how is it "good business" to take those dollars and re-allocate a portion to some other sport.

Sorry, folks. Sounds like JK isn't going to Northwestern. It will be an internal promotion, to be announced on Monday.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ources-say

I don't blame them. No one will touch him.

What a shame. NW admin clearly smarter than Rice's.

Name one positive thing about the figures below aside from the fact that this is better than the 2-14 garbage from last year!

OVERALL - 18-26-1
PCT - .411
CONF - 6-17-1
PCT - .271
STREAK - L3
HOME - 12-13-0
AWAY - 5-11-1
NEUTRAL - 1-2-0


EDIT: honestly, let's bring back the OG for one last season done right with a successor on the staff. There is no way an OG run team, even at age 85, would be this bad.

(05-02-2021 09:40 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Sorry, folks. Sounds like JK isn't going to Northwestern. It will be an internal promotion, to be announced on Monday.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...ources-say

The college football board I frequent has a number of current students and recent alumni from Northwestern who are very dissatisfied with this hire. There's apparently an ongoing credible lawsuit alleging a lack of control in the athletics department with respect to sexual harassment and racial discrimination in the cheer leading program, and the man they promoted is a named defendant in that case. I'm not intimately familiar with the details, but as I understand it, the (now fired) cheer coach pressured the girls on the team to put up with inappropriate advances/groping/etc. from big money donors and forced the Black cheerleaders to spread themselves across the cheer groups around the stadium for "optics". The man Northwestern just promoted is alleged to have supported a coverup of these actions.