(12-15-2013 02:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

MBB is by far the most material sport outside of football. I love your optimism, but when I think about what Leebron and the Board have allowed to fester over there, the skies darken for me quite a bit.

(12-15-2013 04:14 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 02:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

MBB is by far the most material sport outside of football. I love your optimism, but when I think about what Leebron and the Board have allowed to fester over there, the skies darken for me quite a bit.

Which is why I say we need to lead them, and not wait for them to lead us.

THEIR job is to protect the University and the endowment. If it isn't something we demand/force/fund, then it isn't something they are going to do.

I'd say that is simply a continuation of 40 years of them stepping up to the plate, waiting for us to give them the 'hit away' sign.

(12-15-2013 02:40 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(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.

Hambone, isn't there actual net cash flow that results from athletics for schools like Stanford, Duke and even TCU? Just clarifying if there is value beyond rankings and notoriety?

Also, does the BOT have the authority to invest other Rice assets over and above what the Alumni base contributes? I hear the emphasis on the the Alumni base funding athletic expansion but I have assumed that if the BOT decides, they could mobilize $100m, for example. Is this correct?

I don't know if Stanford makes money. I doubt if TCU does. Of course for Stanford, with a 300mm athletic endowment (assume 5% for simplicity) generates 15mm per year, plus the 15-20mm share from the conference, plus probably another 5-10mm in ticket sales and gear... plus annual gifts, they may well make money.

As for Rice, as far as I know, and i was very sure of this not too long ago and don't think anything has changed... the endowment is inviolate, and it can't be used for facilities of any kind... thus ANY new building must be funded out of new donations... and the revenue generated by the endowment is what is spent on salaries and facilities and maintenance etc etc etc. Obviously they can play with the mix of income generating and capital gains investments to generate more or less income, but it is only this income that can be spent.

so a 4 byn endowment generating 5% income can spend 200mm per year... and if we want them to spend 210mm/yr... or an additional 100mm over ten years, then we need an athletic endowment of 200mm (which would give us $10mm in perpetuity), or more simply just an additional $10mm per year in donations. Either way, it's a substantial ask. 1-2mm is not, particularly when combined with 50-100mm for facilities.

We CAN borrow against the endowment... meaning if we get pledges of 1mm/yr for ten years, we can spend the vast majority of that $10mm today and collect the balance over the next ten years.... but it is tougher to say we're going to borrow it against future ticket sales or something.

(12-16-2013 12:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know if Stanford makes money. I doubt if TCU does. Of course for Stanford, with a 300mm athletic endowment (assume 5% for simplicity) generates 15mm per year, plus the 15-20mm share from the conference, plus probably another 5-10mm in ticket sales and gear... plus annual gifts, they may well make money.

As for Rice, as far as I know, and i was very sure of this not too long ago and don't think anything has changed... the endowment is inviolate, and it can't be used for facilities of any kind... thus ANY new building must be funded out of new donations... and the revenue generated by the endowment is what is spent on salaries and facilities and maintenance etc etc etc. Obviously they can play with the mix of income generating and capital gains investments to generate more or less income, but it is only this income that can be spent.

so a 4 byn endowment generating 5% income can spend 200mm per year... and if we want them to spend 210mm/yr... or an additional 100mm over ten years, then we need an athletic endowment of 200mm (which would give us $10mm in perpetuity), or more simply just an additional $10mm per year in donations. Either way, it's a substantial ask. 1-2mm is not, particularly when combined with 50-100mm for facilities.

We CAN borrow against the endowment... meaning if we get pledges of 1mm/yr for ten years, we can spend the vast majority of that $10mm today and collect the balance over the next ten years.... but it is tougher to say we're going to borrow it against future ticket sales or something.

Fascinating. This makes the more conservative approach more understandable. I still think the University needs to make the commitment that will ultimately spur alumni support and yield consistent winning and brand value. However, I better understand that this is a more risky proposition than I thought.

Weis fired today. Glad Reagan got his long-term deal.

(09-28-2014 11:25 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Weis fired today. Glad Reagan got his long-term deal.

Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

Don't cry for Charlie he will get the full $7M due him for the remainder of the contract.

(09-28-2014 11:25 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Weis fired today. Glad Reagan got his long-term deal.

Well, Reagan's offense did produce 3 points in two P5 games for Weis.

(09-28-2014 12:09 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Don't cry for Charlie he will get the full $7M due him for the remainder of the contract.

Pffft. I'd have let them fire me for half that.

(09-28-2014 12:00 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

If none of our offensive assistants leave then there won't be any position available for him.

As unenthusiastic as many of us were about the Edmondson-Lynch duo in the offseason, I don't currently think they are a downgrade from Reagan. Even if one of them leaves, my guess is that the other will become sole OC.

(09-28-2014 11:21 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 12:00 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

If none of our offensive assistants leave then there won't be any position available for him.

As unenthusiastic as many of us were about the Edmondson-Lynch duo in the offseason, I don't currently think they are a downgrade from Reagan. Even if one of them leaves, my guess is that the other will become sole OC.

Gravy-- I don't believe many thought the duo would be a downgrade from Reagan-- who most of us despised; the issue was that given the opportunity, it was unlikely they'd be much of an upgrade. I'd agree they've proved better (so far) than we expected. Some of the very questionable and conservative 3rd and 4th down play calling I put on Bailiff (as it's a reflection of his overall philosophy) more than I do the coordinators.

(09-29-2014 06:14 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:21 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 12:00 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

If none of our offensive assistants leave then there won't be any position available for him.
As unenthusiastic as many of us were about the Edmondson-Lynch duo in the offseason, I don't currently think they are a downgrade from Reagan. Even if one of them leaves, my guess is that the other will become sole OC.

Gravy-- I don't believe many thought the duo would be a downgrade from Reagan-- who most of us despised; the issue was that given the opportunity, it was unlikely they'd be much of an upgrade. I'd agree they've proved better (so far) than we expected. Some of the very questionable and conservative 3rd and 4th down play calling I put on Bailiff (as it's a reflection of his overall philosophy) more than I do the coordinators.

Walt, I wouldn't say the problem is too conservative 3rd and 4th down play calling as much as it is what I have called schizophrenic play calling. Bailiff has a generally conservative lean, but in order to make conservative football work, you have to be good defensively and good in the kicking game, and we aren't. So we get caught in never-never land because we can't do the things we have to do to make the philosophy we want to follow work. Punting to gain field position makes sense if you are Alabama and your defense can stop them and get the ball back. Punting to give them the ball so they can throw an 80 yard TD doesn't.

We run plays, not an offense. There is some coordination going on, like Hambone's example involving running the bubble screen to set up the fake. But in large measure it just seems that every play is run in a vacuum. Reach in the bag and see what comes out. Or Forrest Gump's box of chocolates. And that's been the case under Mensa, under Zaunbrecher, under Reagan, so some of that has to be coming from the head coach. How do you coordinate an offense that is inherently uncoordinated?

What I'd like to see Bailiff do is spend his time on the defensive side of the ball until that's working, and let a good OC put in a system instead of plays.

(09-28-2014 12:00 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:25 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Weis fired today. Glad Reagan got his long-term deal.

Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

no way he comes back plus he has five years in his contract. He will get paid out if they part ways. He's secure until the end of the year. For now they need to put up points

(09-28-2014 12:00 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:25 AM)owl40 Wrote:  Weis fired today. Glad Reagan got his long-term deal.

Let's not make the same mistake we made with Beaty and bring him back only to have him leave again the next year.

no way he comes back plus he has five years in his contract. He will get paid out if they part ways. He's secure until the end of the year. For now they need to put up points