It sounds like folks here should become more familiar with Rice's 2004 McKinsey Report. Here's a link to the 123-page report:
http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf
Executive summary Wrote:This report is the culmination of a detailed review of intercollegiate athletics programs at Rice University as commissioned by the Rice Board of Trustees in June 2003. It serves as a tool to inform future Board discussions regarding the nature and scope of athletics at Rice University.
The analyses contained within highlight nearly every aspect of Rice athletics and lead to four viable, forward-looking options that Rice could pursue. For each of the options, the implications for key stakeholders are outlined, as are academic, competitive, economic, and social issues that would likely result from potential changes to the athletics programs. Each of the viable options has its advantages and disadvantages, but each also offers some opportunity to address underlying, recurring issues.
In characterizing these options, each is treated as a final state. While it is
theoretically possible for one or more to be used as transition states to “test the water” or spread change over time, many of these transitions will be met with significant debate and controversy. Given that, it seems that every effort should be made to make a single commitment towards the best answer for the future of Rice athletics. Equally important is the concept that this should be a decisive change, in the spirit of limiting the ongoing uncertainty around the viability and direction of Rice’s programs.
Ultimately, the direction of Rice’s athletics programs may be assessed through four fundamental questions:
1. What kind of intercollegiate athletics program does Rice want to have,
given the balance of educational, research, and competitive goals of the
University?
2. How possible is it to achieve a quality program with those
characteristics, in the context of Rice’s traditions, constituents, and size?
3. How will success be defined for the athletics program going forward?
4. How willing is Rice to invest the time and money and to make the
admissions trade-offs required for the program to be an overwhelming
success and source of pride?
The single most important part of any decision making process will be answering these fundamental questions honestly to define the long-term basis of an athletics program that matches Rice University’s goals and aspirations. This basis can be refined and adjusted as necessary to match shorter-term concerns or to optimize economics, but only through explicit, committed answers to the fundamental questions can Rice hope to avoid revisiting these issues in the coming years.
The latter part of the report looked at the implications of four "viable options," in rough order from least change to most:
1. Remain in NCAA Division I-A, but aggressively work to improve top tier
sports locally and nationally.
2. Move to NCAA Division I-AA (less competitive, non-scholarship
football) and potentially move to the Patriot League, Pioneer League, or a similar, non-scholarship football conference.
3. Drop football and move to NCAA Division I-AAA.
4. Move to NCAA Division III (non-scholarship athletics with a
fundamentally different institutional emphasis) and potentially join the University Athletic Association (UAA).
(Also considered briefly were the following "less attractive options":
1. Move to Division III, but retain a Division I baseball team.
2. Move to Division II.
3. Move to Division II, but retain a Division I baseball team.
4. Move to Division I of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA).
5. Drop formal intercollegiate athletics and move to club sports. )
The study outlined the options and implications. But it's up to Rice to make the decisions and commitments and to implement and fund the resulting plans that aim to reach the goals.