(12-10-2013 10:03 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  With regards to a permanent hire for OC, weren't there reports by JD on his twitter feed once the Reagan rumors started that several people had called Rice for the open position? Any word on who those individuals may have been?

Harbaugh.

(12-10-2013 05:20 PM)texd Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:03 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  With regards to a permanent hire for OC, weren't there reports by JD on his twitter feed once the Reagan rumors started that several people had called Rice for the open position? Any word on who those individuals may have been?

Harbaugh.

Now, now Tex. Thats how rumors get started.......

Unless you're talking about the other, heretofore unknown Harbaugh brother, Harpo

(12-09-2013 05:06 PM)lou Wrote:  

(12-08-2013 10:04 PM)07owl Wrote:  Plus you get to watch Charlie Weis work up close...that is invaluable

DECIDED SCHEMATIC ADVANTAGE.

I'm so glad this happened.

(12-10-2013 05:28 PM)Pimpa Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 05:20 PM)texd Wrote:  

(12-10-2013 10:03 AM)Pimpa Wrote:  With regards to a permanent hire for OC, weren't there reports by JD on his twitter feed once the Reagan rumors started that several people had called Rice for the open position? Any word on who those individuals may have been?

Harbaugh.

Now, now Tex. Thats how rumors get started.......

Unless you're talking about the other, heretofore unknown Harbaugh brother, Harpo

I was always partial to Zeppo...

Back to the OC search, here is a guy I would very much like DB to interview. He has been toxic due to a domestic abuse charge that was dropped. He is a grad of St Thomas HS in Houston. He was RB coach at LSU and Texas and then OC at Notre Dame. he is back living in Houston.

He was HC at Miami for two years. Inheriting a 2-10, he went 1-11 followed by 9-4 with a MAC championship.

He didn't coach the bowl game that second year as had accepted the Pitt job. He had fathered a child out of wedlock at ND and allowed the woman to live in his home while he was at Miami. After getting the Pitt job, he tried to sell the house. The domestic abuse charge emerged from his demand that the woman vacate the house and her refusal. Very short sighted decision by her to resist eviction and to press charges as certainly $2MM per year at Pitt would have funded a lot of child support.

I don't know him personally, but he recruited two of my son's HS teammates and the HS coach was very high on him. I don't think we come close to this level of resume with anyone else at a given salary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Haywood

Interesting, but what? UH considered Jack Pardee in 2007?

Michael Haywood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Haywood Wrote:In December 2007, Haywood was considered one of the two leading candidates for the head coaching position at the University of Houston, alongside Jack Pardee.[1] However, the job eventually went to Kevin Sumlin.

edit: I just noticed that Pardee died this past April. RIP ... I always thought he was a class character.

Assuming he's not hired by UND, here's a potential option to replace Reagan:

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/ar.../homepage/

I wish we could get this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stitt

(12-09-2013 09:05 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-09-2013 08:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm not sure one game is a "promote from within" opportunity. This to me is an audition... as much for the guy who gets the job as the guy who doesn't. Obviously, there isn't much time to develop a different style, but there is an opportunity to present a different perspective on that style.

next season, with a new QB and a different style of runner (perhaps) it can be a VERY different offensive style

Can be, but doesn't need to be. If Driphus Jackson is our QB, I can see us being just as effective running the same offense, with Dillard and Davis our primary RBs (with Turner being our short yardage guy). Don't we also have a couple impressive true Freshman RBs coming in? Davis may not have the power and pysicality that Ross brings, but he's much more of a breakaway threat. I'd also love to see him on kickoff returns. On the receiver corp, we lose Moore and Kubiac, but return our best and most productive guys in Taylor, Parks and Cella, as well as a hopefully healthy Hull.

From where I sit (the cheap seats) that is a mighty big if.

(12-10-2013 02:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Bailiff has worked too hard and is just now reaping the rewards. I wouldn't think he'd WANT to go anywhere else for a while yet.

D1 is absolutely correct that we need to step up to keep Thurmond (or hire someone DEMONSTRABLY just as good) and replace Reagan with someone even better. We KNOW how long it took and how many failures it took to get to Thurmond... we can't afford to keep trying to get lucky in those hires.

If Thurmond gets a BCS HC offer (yes, we are BCS) we won't be able to keep him and should wish him well. If he gets a major AQ (we aren't AQ and neither is UH after this year) DC offer, we probably can't keep him and should wish him well. What we CAN'T have happen is that he get hired as a DC by another non-AQ, or as HC for a "lower" tier. In fact, we need to be the guys who can hire a successful DC at a belt or wac or MTN WEST school as a DC for us because we can/will pay more for success. (I'd say CUSA but I'd mean it for a point of reference... I wouldn't really want to poach other conference teams if I could help it)

We need to be in that middle ground between successful non-AQ schools and un/modestly successful AQ schools. Just like our professors... we should pay up vs the people we think we should be "better than" for quality, but not make financially unintelligent decisions merely because we can. I think Mack is a very good coach. I don't think he's worth anywhere NEAR what they pay him. I think lots of people could do as good or better job for far less, but they pay him that because they can.

Ballparking... for conversation... and as a goal... It seems that AQs are $2mm for HC, 500k for O/D-C and 250k for assistants. Non AQs are more like 600k for HC 150k for O/D-C and 80k for assistants. I think we could do QUITE well if we were more like $1mm for HC (paying even more for a proven winner against AQ schools) 350-500 for coordinators and 125-175 for assistants.

We are PERHAPS talking $1mm more for coaches combined, but I think if VASTLY improves our ability to win and retain winning coaches. It puts us below SMU still (VERY top heavy) and about where Tulsa and UH are.. with perhaps more focus on assistants. We ARE a unique place to recruit to, but lots of these great assistant coaches will NEVER be "Rice guys" as much as they are family men trying to build their own career. We can greatly increase our ability to attract and retain assistants if we pay better. We shouldn't continue to hope to get lucky every few years in our hires.

I don't understand this line of thinking? Why would we emulate Tulsa and UH? Why wouldn't emulate Stanford? Duke?

Your example of Mack Brown is perfect for this question. I would contend that Mack's value is extend's far beyond wins and losses. Admittedly, he is a marginal coach. He, however, is a money making machine for UT...a tremendous ambassador for UT and a great investment for them. Could they get a better coach for less? Absolutely. Would he have stayed for 16 years without a $5m/yr salary? I doubt it. Has their ROI from Mack's salary exceeded the ROI from a scenario in which they cap their HC's salary at, for example $2.5 mil and lose their HC every 3-5 years? Nobody knows but I suspect so.

Though at a lesser scale, I think this is the mindset that Stanford and Duke adopted long ago resulting in, not only, tremendous cash flow but also many other intangible values. Why wouldn't Rice emulate this model?

because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

(12-14-2013 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

I believe we get $1.2MM from CUSA vs. Stanford's $12.0MM/yr take from the Pac-12 pie.

(12-14-2013 12:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

I believe we get $1.2MM from CUSA vs. Stanford's $12.0MM/yr take from the Pac-12 pie.

A bit more than that for Stanford.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...55095542/1

(12-14-2013 12:17 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 12:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

I believe we get $1.2MM from CUSA vs. Stanford's $12.0MM/yr take from the Pac-12 pie.

A bit more than that for Stanford.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...55095542/1

Wow! That's just insane-- $21MM per year guaranteed per school, with the likelihood of considerably more?

(12-14-2013 12:17 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 12:15 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

I believe we get $1.2MM from CUSA vs. Stanford's $12.0MM/yr take from the Pac-12 pie.

A bit more than that for Stanford.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...55095542/1

Those are scary numbers to try to catch up to.

(12-14-2013 12:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  because the resources we have/bring in more closely resemble those of Tulsa and UH than Duke and Stanford. While they may not currently spend 3-5mm on coaching, there is no doubt that they have the conference revenues to do so if they wanted. We don't. Further, as we don't yet compete in their conferences, to spend say 2mm on a head coach and 1mm on assistants is unnecessary... not to mention unrealistic as a request of the bot

The cashflow at UT and Alabama is primarily a result of their massive, statewide alumni/fan bases which is part of the job that we will never have.... that Stanford and Duke don't have.

Stanford has a 3-400mm athletic endowment that we could emulate, and when we get there, we can talk about paying more... especially if we are in a conference that generates the revenue that they get

The differences in conference revenue are staggering... I remember seeing once that our conference revenue was around $1mm, while AQ teams average around $14mm... PLUS all the licensing etc which for teams like Duke and Stanford isn't nothing, but isn't NEARLY what UT and Alabama have.

I mentioned UH and Tulsa because they are in a conference like ours and they are generally consistent winners... and I think we can out-recruit them with a coach like DB and the reputation of our University with the same resources. SMU spends as much but gets far worse results... Boise and TCU spend more... If you'd prefer I use them, fine. I was trying to use schools we have recent history with and specific knowledge of. FTR, I think inarguably UH and Tulsa are trying to copy Boise and TCU. We can't copy Stanford and Duke because they don't need to earn their way back into AW conferences.

At THAT point, we should be able to compete regularly with AQ schools and argue for inclusion in an AQ conference....and the revenue that goes with it... at which point, it is harder for the BOT to say no when they aren't providing nearly the subsidy that they currently are

Great response.

The art of business and fund raising allows for wild opinions...pardon mine.

I think Stanford and Duke obtained their current position with a different mindset. Translated into current terms and oversimplified, I think they look and see a potential for $15m net/year in revenue from athletics. They see that spending $200 mil yields 7.5% ROI, not to mention intangible values. I suspect the net revenue from athletics for Stanford doubles or triples the payments from the conference so, if your minimum target ROI is 4-5%, your willingness to mobilize other university assets yields funds in the range of > $300m, conservatively.
With this kind of commitment from the university, Alumni, business partners and corporate sponsors are now contributing at a new level and you see a synergistic escalation of revenue that ultimately spills over into other areas.

I would contend that you even have the right HC to do this. Like Mack Brown, Bailiff isn't a great coach but he is a skilled program builder. If you increase his salary, significantly, allowing assistants to get paid competitively, you can surround Bailiff with football brilliance and let him do his thing. This would obviously need to be accompanied by marketing, branding, facilities, etc but if you take the aggressive business approach of pursuing one of the large pay-out positions, funds are available over the 5-7 years required to make the transition.

(12-14-2013 05:10 PM)Owl1991 Wrote:  The art of business and fund raising allows for wild opinions...pardon mine.

I think Stanford and Duke obtained their current position with a different mindset. Translated into current terms and oversimplified, I think they look and see a potential for $15m net/year in revenue from athletics. They see that spending $200 mil yields 7.5% ROI, not to mention intangible values. I suspect the net revenue from athletics for Stanford doubles or triples the payments from the conference so, if your minimum target ROI is 4-5%, your willingness to mobilize other university assets yields funds in the range of > $300m, conservatively.
With this kind of commitment from the university, Alumni, business partners and corporate sponsors are now contributing at a new level and you see a synergistic escalation of revenue that ultimately spills over into other areas.

I would contend that you even have the right HC to do this. Like Mack Brown, Bailiff isn't a great coach but he is a skilled program builder. If you increase his salary, significantly, allowing assistants to get paid competitively, you can surround Bailiff with football brilliance and let him do his thing. This would obviously need to be accompanied by marketing, branding, facilities, etc but if you take the aggressive business approach of pursuing one of the large pay-out positions, funds are available over the 5-7 years required to make the transition.

I'm sorry if it came across wrong, as I don't disagree with you. I just think we're at different points in the plan. Had we remained in the SWC/Big12, I think we could do what you describe... but we have to get there first.

I agree 100% that we should try and surround Bailiff with top talent to augment his talents.

(12-14-2013 05:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-14-2013 05:10 PM)Owl1991 Wrote:  The art of business and fund raising allows for wild opinions...pardon mine.

I think Stanford and Duke obtained their current position with a different mindset. Translated into current terms and oversimplified, I think they look and see a potential for $15m net/year in revenue from athletics. They see that spending $200 mil yields 7.5% ROI, not to mention intangible values. I suspect the net revenue from athletics for Stanford doubles or triples the payments from the conference so, if your minimum target ROI is 4-5%, your willingness to mobilize other university assets yields funds in the range of > $300m, conservatively.
With this kind of commitment from the university, Alumni, business partners and corporate sponsors are now contributing at a new level and you see a synergistic escalation of revenue that ultimately spills over into other areas.

I would contend that you even have the right HC to do this. Like Mack Brown, Bailiff isn't a great coach but he is a skilled program builder. If you increase his salary, significantly, allowing assistants to get paid competitively, you can surround Bailiff with football brilliance and let him do his thing. This would obviously need to be accompanied by marketing, branding, facilities, etc but if you take the aggressive business approach of pursuing one of the large pay-out positions, funds are available over the 5-7 years required to make the transition.

... I just think we're at different points in the plan...

I think this is the real question. Will the University's investment precede a scenario in which we are successful on the field and reaping financial benefits from athletics or do we try to get there on a conservative budget? I think the BOT insists on the conservative budget rather than mobilizing other university assets. Unfortunately, I think the investment must come first...all-in, 10 year plan, $100's of M. I think Rice would be shocked at the ROI on this investment.

Your analysis is much more realistic and insightful. Living in Fort Worth and watching TCU work the plan, it disappoints me that Rice won't take the same risk.

The problem with 'too close' comparisons to many other places is that there just isn't anyone like us. TCU is a solid school (92 I think USNWR) but that still isn't top 20. No doubt, their success in football has likely improved their 'yield' numbers etc etc which has improved their ranking, but Rice is at a level where improving our rejection rate is only marginally beneficial.

The key is, that there are actually half a dozen or more areas where 'winning' athletics improves a Universities ranking... yield, campus life, alumni connections, national reputation and recognition etc etc etc and taken together, it could make a difference.... and while having good football and other sports is nice, it isn't a universities primary purpose... so without these benefits, the BOT is reticent to allow this sort of investment. Considering we recently considered spending a billion dollars and taking on the huge financial risk of a hospital to improve our standing, we are talking about an absolute rounding error.... but we have to show causation/effectiveness.

The BAD part of being in CUSA as opposed to an AQ conference is clearly the money. The GOOD part is that our path to consistent success (as measured by a winning record and bowl appearances) is easier. Unfortunately, you STILL have to put a scare and occassionally draw blood against 'the big boys' which means being (as an example) a school like Sam who often wins their conference and sometimes even their national championship isn't nearly enough, which is why we have to put a few more resources into it to assure consistent victories in CUSA and give us some more regular wins against AQ schools.

This year has been great and gives us a REAL opportunity to take some serious leaps forward.

50-70mm for facilities and another million or two (on top of what we are already spending, including the 'accumulated deficit') is a small price to pay to give us the potential to improve as a university... even if just by one slot. The former is already in the pipeline... the latter is an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY step that we have constantly failed to take for the past 40 years. We simply CAN'T continue to make this mistake. By combining it with the success of this season, as opposed to trying to create excitement out of thin air as we have done in the past makes the financially 'risky' thing for the BOT and our donors and boosters to do to FAIL to take advantage of this incredible opportunity. If we let UTSA and UNT (not to mention all of the others) catch up to us by failing to take advantage, we can look at THIS moment in our history.

FTR, I'm not just talking about football. Clearly football drives national attention... but the 'positives' extend to every single sport on campus, and to campus life in general.

Please don't misunderstand... I am confident that the board knows and believes this... the only questions are a) will we as alumni and fans provide the funds, and I am convinced we will b) do we as alumni and fans believe that we can be successful in this plan and will we hold those we hire to do these jobs accountable and c) do we believe that 'the time is now'. I think that the BOT generally believes this, but they need for US to rally for this cause... to LEAD rather than follow the board to the correct conclusion.

(12-15-2013 02:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The problem with 'too close' comparisons to many other places is that there just isn't anyone like us. TCU is a solid school (92 I think USNWR) but that still isn't top 20. No doubt, their success in football has likely improved their 'yield' numbers etc etc which has improved their ranking, but Rice is at a level where improving our rejection rate is only marginally beneficial.

The key is, that there are actually half a dozen or more areas where 'winning' athletics improves a Universities ranking... yield, campus life, alumni connections, national reputation and recognition etc etc etc and taken together, it could make a difference.... and while having good football and other sports is nice, it isn't a universities primary purpose... so without these benefits, the BOT is reticent to allow this sort of investment. Considering we recently considered spending a billion dollars and taking on the huge financial risk of a hospital to improve our standing, we are talking about an absolute rounding error.... but we have to show causation/effectiveness.

The BAD part of being in CUSA as opposed to an AQ conference is clearly the money. The GOOD part is that our path to consistent success (as measured by a winning record and bowl appearances) is easier. Unfortunately, you STILL have to put a scare and occassionally draw blood against 'the big boys' which means being (as an example) a school like Sam who often wins their conference and sometimes even their national championship isn't nearly enough, which is why we have to put a few more resources into it to assure consistent victories in CUSA and give us some more regular wins against AQ schools.

This year has been great and gives us a REAL opportunity to take some serious leaps forward.

50-70mm for facilities and another million or two (on top of what we are already spending, including the 'accumulated deficit') is a small price to pay to give us the potential to improve as a university... even if just by one slot. The former is already in the pipeline... the latter is an ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY step that we have constantly failed to take for the past 40 years. We simply CAN'T continue to make this mistake. By combining it with the success of this season, as opposed to trying to create excitement out of thin air as we have done in the past makes the financially 'risky' thing for the BOT and our donors and boosters to do to FAIL to take advantage of this incredible opportunity. If we let UTSA and UNT (not to mention all of the others) catch up to us by failing to take advantage, we can look at THIS moment in our history.

FTR, I'm not just talking about football. Clearly football drives national attention... but the 'positives' extend to every single sport on campus, and to campus life in general.

Please don't misunderstand... I am confident that the board knows and believes this... the only questions are a) will we as alumni and fans provide the funds, and I am convinced we will b) do we as alumni and fans believe that we can be successful in this plan and will we hold those we hire to do these jobs accountable and c) do we believe that 'the time is now'. I think that the BOT generally believes this, but they need for US to rally for this cause... to LEAD rather than follow the board to the correct conclusion.

+1000000. It is up to us to push for this.