(09-18-2017 07:16 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  Dropping football doesn't make the other problems go away. I don't mean to imply that it does.
But football seems to be the biggest challenge for us. And dropping it would mean that we could pour more resources into other programs and start new ones that we would have a better chance of succeeding in. We have shown that, yes, we can be more than respectable in baseball. We looked to be on our way to respectability in basketball, but we suffered a major setback, so the jury is still out on that one.
The point is, I see the potential for a bigger plan. Dropping football doesn't magically fix everything, but it would give us a better opportunity to focus on things that we can and should do better.
Now what the overall plan would be is up for debate. I don't have time for that right now. But I seriously believe that since we don't seem to care any longer about football being consistently respectable, we have to live in the present and pack it in.

Quote:Owl 69/70/75 keeps saying that fixing and stabilizing basketball is an almost certain road to a better future for us. I think that has to be a big part of any real reform, no question.

Quote:We're never going to be a P5 school again under the current definition (we ostensibly were one during the SWC years). However, we can certainly be a much better D1 representative than we currently are. Gonzaga, Wichita State, Davidson, etc. have demonstrated the viability of the sans-football model.

(09-18-2017 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Football is kind of the loss leader that you have to play in order to get to sit at the table.

Quote:The problem with the sans-football model is that finding a conference home would be problematic, and scheduling without a conference affiliation would be difficult. McKinsey basically concluded that it was impossible 13 years ago, and I don't see any changes since then that would make it work. Wichita State is going the no-football route, enabled by their role as the complement to Navy's football-only membership in the AAC. There is not another of those situations on offer, nor do I expect to see one.

(09-19-2017 12:07 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  The product on the field the last 10 years has diminished Rice's reputation. Rice will never spend money like a Stanford or Vandy on athletics so why continue the status quo at D-1 (I'm strictly speaking of the football team)? It cannot get any worse.

And this may not be a popular opinion on a sports message board, but if we scrapped football, wouldn't the admission statistics be enhanced? If we have roughly 1,000 students enrolling every year then the football team would account for roughly 8% of that total. That is significant. We know the administration decreases the normal entrance standards for these players. Can anyone really argue against that? The football team isn't making any money, has a negative reputation on the university and brings down admission statistics.

(09-19-2017 12:07 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  The product on the field the last 10 years has diminished Rice's reputation. Rice will never spend money like a Stanford or Vandy on athletics so why continue the status quo at D-1 (I'm strictly speaking of the football team)? It cannot get any worse.

And this may not be a popular opinion on a sports message board, but if we scrapped football, wouldn't the admission statistics be enhanced? If we have roughly 1,000 students enrolling every year then the football team would account for roughly 8% of that total. That is significant. We know the administration decreases the normal entrance standards for these players. Can anyone really argue against that? The football team isn't making any money, has a negative reputation on the university and brings down admission statistics.

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.

So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

(09-19-2017 12:07 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  The product on the field the last 10 years has diminished Rice's reputation. Rice will never spend money like a Stanford or Vandy on athletics so why continue the status quo at D-1 (I'm strictly speaking of the football team)? It cannot get any worse.

And this may not be a popular opinion on a sports message board, but if we scrapped football, wouldn't the admission statistics be enhanced? If we have roughly 1,000 students enrolling every year then the football team would account for roughly 8% of that total. That is significant. We know the administration decreases the normal entrance standards for these players. Can anyone really argue against that? The football team isn't making any money, has a negative reputation on the university and brings down admission statistics.

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.

So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

(09-19-2017 12:07 PM)Hou_Lawyer Wrote:  The product on the field the last 10 years has diminished Rice's reputation. Rice will never spend money like a Stanford or Vandy on athletics so why continue the status quo at D-1 (I'm strictly speaking of the football team)? It cannot get any worse.

And this may not be a popular opinion on a sports message board, but if we scrapped football, wouldn't the admission statistics be enhanced? If we have roughly 1,000 students enrolling every year then the football team would account for roughly 8% of that total. That is significant. We know the administration decreases the normal entrance standards for these players. Can anyone really argue against that? The football team isn't making any money, has a negative reputation on the university and brings down admission statistics.

I agree with your post, I just wanted to add that I hope no one here is under the illusion that Harvard et al. do not also lower their entrance standards for athletes. The new U.S. Attorney in Chicago played football at Harvard and was quoted in the paper as saying he barely cracked 1100 on the SAT.

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.

So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

(09-19-2017 04:19 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.

So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

Let me point out that Johns Hopkins is a poor example to use in this argument. The Blue Jays' presence in the Big Ten for lacrosse is in essence a historical accident. JHU is Division III for all sports except for men's lacrosse. The NCAA used to permit schools to have one sport in a different classification than the rest of its athletic program but discontinued that policy some years ago. However, schools like JHU who had taken advantage of that policy had those programs grandfathered in, so Blue Jays lacrosse can stay that way as long as it wants. So when the Big Ten admits JHU for lacrosse, the issue of where the rest of the Blue Jays' programs go is moot, because there are no other Division I programs at the school. By contrast, Rice has a full complement of Division I programs to consider.

The bottom line is fairly simple. Football provides about 85% of college athletics revenues in Division I. If you don't have football, you don't make money. Either Rice works on improving football and stays in Division I FBS, or it drops football and drops to Division III. Economically, these are the only two solutions that work.

(09-19-2017 04:28 PM)75src Wrote:  Your conclusion is pretty much what the McKinsey study of 2004 stated. I agree.

(09-19-2017 04:19 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.
So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

Let me point out that Johns Hopkins is a poor example to use in this argument. The Blue Jays' presence in the Big Ten for lacrosse is in essence a historical accident. JHU is Division III for all sports except for men's lacrosse. The NCAA used to permit schools to have one sport in a different classification than the rest of its athletic program but discontinued that policy some years ago. However, schools like JHU who had taken advantage of that policy had those programs grandfathered in, so Blue Jays lacrosse can stay that way as long as it wants. So when the Big Ten admits JHU for lacrosse, the issue of where the rest of the Blue Jays' programs go is moot, because there are no other Division I programs at the school. By contrast, Rice has a full complement of Division I programs to consider.
The bottom line is fairly simple. Football provides about 85% of college athletics revenues in Division I. If you don't have football, you don't make money. Either Rice works on improving football and stays in Division I FBS, or it drops football and drops to Division III. Economically, these are the only two solutions that work.

(09-19-2017 04:19 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.

So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

Let me point out that Johns Hopkins is a poor example to use in this argument. The Blue Jays' presence in the Big Ten for lacrosse is in essence a historical accident. JHU is Division III for all sports except for men's lacrosse. The NCAA used to permit schools to have one sport in a different classification than the rest of its athletic program but discontinued that policy some years ago. However, schools like JHU who had taken advantage of that policy had those programs grandfathered in, so Blue Jays lacrosse can stay that way as long as it wants. So when the Big Ten admits JHU for lacrosse, the issue of where the rest of the Blue Jays' programs go is moot, because there are no other Division I programs at the school. By contrast, Rice has a full complement of Division I programs to consider.

The bottom line is fairly simple. Football provides about 85% of college athletics revenues in Division I. If you don't have football, you don't make money. Either Rice works on improving football and stays in Division I FBS, or it drops football and drops to Division III. Economically, these are the only two solutions that work.

(09-19-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 04:28 PM)75src Wrote:  Your conclusion is pretty much what the McKinsey study of 2004 stated. I agree.

(09-19-2017 04:19 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.
So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

Let me point out that Johns Hopkins is a poor example to use in this argument. The Blue Jays' presence in the Big Ten for lacrosse is in essence a historical accident. JHU is Division III for all sports except for men's lacrosse. The NCAA used to permit schools to have one sport in a different classification than the rest of its athletic program but discontinued that policy some years ago. However, schools like JHU who had taken advantage of that policy had those programs grandfathered in, so Blue Jays lacrosse can stay that way as long as it wants. So when the Big Ten admits JHU for lacrosse, the issue of where the rest of the Blue Jays' programs go is moot, because there are no other Division I programs at the school. By contrast, Rice has a full complement of Division I programs to consider.
The bottom line is fairly simple. Football provides about 85% of college athletics revenues in Division I. If you don't have football, you don't make money. Either Rice works on improving football and stays in Division I FBS, or it drops football and drops to Division III. Economically, these are the only two solutions that work.

Yep.
And while lots of things have changed since 2004, that hasn't. We have two options: stay in D-1 and fix football and basketball (because you can't make the numbers work with either one losing money), or go to D-3.

(09-19-2017 05:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 04:28 PM)75src Wrote:  Your conclusion is pretty much what the McKinsey study of 2004 stated. I agree.

(09-19-2017 04:19 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 12:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 10:41 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  A P5 conference will not agree to carry our baseball team. They're all about football and megabucks.
So we end up with our teams scattered across various crappy conferences. How does that improve prospects?

Again, the Big 10 has Johns Hopkins as a lacrosse-only member, and there are other examples of sport-specific conference memberships. Remember, conference membership decisions are ultimately made by university presidents, not conference commissioners or athletic directors, and the JHU name carries substantial cachet with that group, as obviously would Rice. In any event, the bottom line reason JHU is in the Big 10 for lacrosse is that it gave the Big 10 an even number of lacrosse teams. Therefore, any conference that currently has an odd number of baseball teams would very likely welcome Rice to even out the scheduling logistics. The Big XII has 9 baseball teams at present. The Big 10 has 13. The Pac12 has 11. We could put our marquee sport in a premier conference and even if our other sports had to go to a "crappy" conference, hello, we're in CUSA already. Denver is nationally competitive in soccer and tennis and various other sports despite being in a "crappy" conference. For all I know we might be able to stay in CUSA without football or baseball. Invest in the program and you can make NCAA tournaments perennially in various sports no matter your conference - our baseball team proves that - and then maybe you upgrade conferences on a sport-by-sport basis later (as Denver has done with lacrosse). The point is, we need to think outside the box and explore all options.

Let me point out that Johns Hopkins is a poor example to use in this argument. The Blue Jays' presence in the Big Ten for lacrosse is in essence a historical accident. JHU is Division III for all sports except for men's lacrosse. The NCAA used to permit schools to have one sport in a different classification than the rest of its athletic program but discontinued that policy some years ago. However, schools like JHU who had taken advantage of that policy had those programs grandfathered in, so Blue Jays lacrosse can stay that way as long as it wants. So when the Big Ten admits JHU for lacrosse, the issue of where the rest of the Blue Jays' programs go is moot, because there are no other Division I programs at the school. By contrast, Rice has a full complement of Division I programs to consider.
The bottom line is fairly simple. Football provides about 85% of college athletics revenues in Division I. If you don't have football, you don't make money. Either Rice works on improving football and stays in Division I FBS, or it drops football and drops to Division III. Economically, these are the only two solutions that work.

Yep.
And while lots of things have changed since 2004, that hasn't. We have two options: stay in D-1 and fix football and basketball (because you can't make the numbers work with either one losing money), or go to D-3.

(09-19-2017 06:06 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  ...I suspect plans to use the HRS acreage is already being thought about. Case in point-has everyone seen where the new Opera facility is being constructed? Right across from the Music School in the parking lot that was historically (well a few years back) one of the key lots for bskb and BB. And, I have a very good source on this, there are no plans to increase the size of either the voice faculty or student body.

(09-19-2017 05:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One thing that does hurt, and badly. We spent $X million (admittedly a big hunk of it donated) for an EZF that was ballyhooed as what football needed to be competitive. Since then, the only noise football has made is a loud kerplop as it hit the bottom. The BOT is justifiably skeptical about additional commitments to football or athletics.