May be too early to expect this, but does anyone know if our new AD has stated any short to medium term goals for Rice?

Also any skuttlebutt on how he views some problem areas like men's basketball, tennis etc. Is he on board with the HRS plans or does he wish to stress other priorities?

What post- Greenspan improvements are we seeing on the horizon?

Is he "happy" with the status quo or what?

Rice fans need some feedback.

Thanks for any insights offered.

Yeah, been anxious to hear something myself. If we want to get that EZF started soon, we need an announcement ASAP.

Has anyone ( who has met the man ) tried to open a line of commo regarding a vision statement, or State of the Union address ?

He replied to a tweet of mine that a strategic plan is in the works. I didn't ask for a timeline, but was happy to see a positive reply.

(01-27-2014 04:03 PM)mbrindley Wrote:  He replied to a tweet of mine that a strategic plan is in the works. I didn't ask for a timeline, but was happy to see a positive reply.

Ah, I see that now on Dr. K's timeline. Awesome.

I know Karlgaard is a replacement for Greenspan, and that each man may have had a different plan or vision for Rice Athletics. But I get the sense that Karlgaard is constructing a vision from scratch, i.e., he did not inherit any plan or direction from Greenspan's tenure. Again, I know they are two different men, but you would think that, if Greenspan had actually developed a plan with the Board and Leebron, some of that plan/framework would still be used by Karlgaard; after all, a good plan is a good plan, no matter who is at the helm.

What this all indicates to me is that Greenspan never had a plan, did not ever start working on a plan, and that all his talk about a plan (remember when we were told by some here that a plan was forthcoming in a few months--and that was literally, like, two years ago?) was simply a misrepresentation of the facts.

I now hope that we will actually see a plan from Karlgaard, and not just talk of a plan like we got from Greenspan.

(01-27-2014 05:14 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I know Karlgaard is a replacement for Greenspan, and that each man may have had a different plan or vision for Rice Athletics. But I get the sense that Karlgaard is constructing a vision from scratch, i.e., he did not inherit any plan or direction from Greenspan's tenure. Again, I know they are two different men, but you would think that, if Greenspan had actually developed a plan with the Board and Leebron, some of that plan/framework would still be used by Karlgaard; after all, a good plan is a good plan, no matter who is at the helm.
What this all indicates to me is that Greenspan never had a plan, did not ever start working on a plan, and that all his talk about a plan (remember when we were told by some here that a plan was forthcoming in a few months--and that was literally, like, two years ago?) was simply a misrepresentation of the facts.
I now hope that we will actually see a plan from Karlgaard, and not just talk of a plan like we got from Greenspan.

There was no plan from Greenspan and there has never been a plan. Ever.

What we are seeing is what happens when there is no planning. Actually, what we're seeing is probably light years better than what we should have reason to expect from the process that has produced it.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse.
If you don't know where you're going, the path of least resistance will take you there.
Essential tenets of Rice athletics for 40 years.
And oh yes, how could I forget the catch-all, "But we've always done it this way."

I have heard from a former athletic department finance director that the department did not have computers until he got there in 1985. He got them to order PCs. He is a fellow attorney-CPA.

(01-27-2014 07:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 05:14 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I know Karlgaard is a replacement for Greenspan, and that each man may have had a different plan or vision for Rice Athletics. But I get the sense that Karlgaard is constructing a vision from scratch, i.e., he did not inherit any plan or direction from Greenspan's tenure. Again, I know they are two different men, but you would think that, if Greenspan had actually developed a plan with the Board and Leebron, some of that plan/framework would still be used by Karlgaard; after all, a good plan is a good plan, no matter who is at the helm.
What this all indicates to me is that Greenspan never had a plan, did not ever start working on a plan, and that all his talk about a plan (remember when we were told by some here that a plan was forthcoming in a few months--and that was literally, like, two years ago?) was simply a misrepresentation of the facts.
I now hope that we will actually see a plan from Karlgaard, and not just talk of a plan like we got from Greenspan.

There was no plan from Greenspan and there has never been a plan. Ever.

What we are seeing is what happens when there is no planning. Actually, what we're seeing is probably light years better than what we should have reason to expect from the process that has produced it.

Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse.
If you don't know where you're going, the path of least resistance will take you there.
Essential tenets of Rice athletics for 40 years.
And oh yes, how could I forget the catch-all, "But we've always done it this way."

The fact that we haven't heard anything tells me that the "plan" is different from what Greenspan envisioned. The money is in hand to start the stadium renovations, thanks to the capital campaign.
Perhaps it will be a project that is bigger and more comprehensive than originally announced?

(01-28-2014 03:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  The fact that we haven't heard anything tells me that the "plan" is different from what Greenspan envisioned. The money is in hand to start the stadium renovations, thanks to the capital campaign.
Perhaps it will be a project that is bigger and more comprehensive than originally announced?

You mean the Centennial Campaign? Pretty sure this coming project isn't drawing from that.

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)75src Wrote:  I have heard from a former athletic department finance director that the department did not have computers until he got there in 1985. He got them to order PCs. He is a fellow attorney-CPA.

I was there when they were delivered. I was thinking it was 1986, but could have been 1985.

(01-28-2014 07:25 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 03:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  The fact that we haven't heard anything tells me that the "plan" is different from what Greenspan envisioned. The money is in hand to start the stadium renovations, thanks to the capital campaign.
Perhaps it will be a project that is bigger and more comprehensive than originally announced?

You mean the Centennial Campaign? Pretty sure this coming project isn't drawing from that.

Didn't it read on the final report that $44 million of the total was earmarked for "athletics?" I'm sure I wasn't seeing things.

(01-28-2014 10:48 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 07:25 AM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 03:34 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  The fact that we haven't heard anything tells me that the "plan" is different from what Greenspan envisioned. The money is in hand to start the stadium renovations, thanks to the capital campaign.
Perhaps it will be a project that is bigger and more comprehensive than originally announced?

You mean the Centennial Campaign? Pretty sure this coming project isn't drawing from that.

Didn't it read on the final report that $44 million of the total was earmarked for "athletics?" I'm sure I wasn't seeing things.

Actually more than that, but that covered other capital projects.

http://www.centennialcampaignreport.com/...-athletics

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)75src Wrote:  I have heard from a former athletic department finance director that the department did not have computers until he got there in 1985. He got them to order PCs. He is a fellow attorney-CPA.

To be fair, I don't think I touched a PC until 1988, and I was an SE major. I used MACs around campus probably starting in 1986. Aside from that, I used SUN workstations and I couldn't see the department needing those. I can't remember if I used typewriters while I was at Rice, but it wouldn't surprise me if most work wasn't done on those.

edit: I was about to add that PCs of the era weren't capable of much... very primitive Excel and Word programs, but I re-read your statement that he was in finance, so it would've helped him a lot, I imagine.

(01-29-2014 12:08 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 12:54 AM)75src Wrote:  I have heard from a former athletic department finance director that the department did not have computers until he got there in 1985. He got them to order PCs. He is a fellow attorney-CPA.

To be fair, I don't think I touched a PC until 1988, and I was an SE major. I used MACs around campus probably starting in 1986. Aside from that, I used SUN workstations and I couldn't see the department needing those. I can't remember if I used typewriters while I was at Rice, but it wouldn't surprise me if most work wasn't done on those.

+1. As an exec at Citibank, I wasn't forced to start doing my own typing, keeping my own calendar, using a PC, et al. until the 1987 - '88 timeframe. Up until then I had my own Exec Assistant, who did all that and who used a word processor (as opposed to a PC).

I was at a big 8 CPA firm in that era and with a staff of about 300, my guess is that we didn't have more than about 25. I remember working on the first IBM AT desktop about 86. Around 83 or so, we had to go checkout the Lotus 123 disk and floppies were handed out judiciously and believe it or not, were numbered-not sure I ever understood why though.

(01-29-2014 12:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I was at a big 8 CPA firm in that era and with a staff of about 300, my guess is that we didn't have more than about 25. I remember working on the first IBM AT desktop about 86. Around 83 or so, we had to go checkout the Lotus 123 disk and floppies were handed out judiciously and believe it or not, were numbered-not sure I ever understood why though.

That was a Lotus licensing requirement.

I was using them extensively by 1983-84. I think they were 256k PC's. I remember moving from an Apple with 64k and Visi-Calc and thinking what a huge step up that was. We've come a long way, baby!

Our corporate controller had found a hijacked version of 1-2-3, so we all had copies. Then corporate said (correctly) that we couldn't use those and bought a copy from Lotus for each computer. We never opened the boxes, just kept using what we already had loaded (since it would boot without loading the floppy) but we had a box with a floppy for every work station.

(01-29-2014 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I was at a big 8 CPA firm in that era and with a staff of about 300, my guess is that we didn't have more than about 25. I remember working on the first IBM AT desktop about 86. Around 83 or so, we had to go checkout the Lotus 123 disk and floppies were handed out judiciously and believe it or not, were numbered-not sure I ever understood why though.

That was a Lotus licensing requirement.

I was using them extensively by 1983-84. I think they were 256k PC's. I remember moving from an Apple with 64k and Visi-Calc and thinking what a huge step up that was. We've come a long way, baby!

Our corporate controller had found a hijacked version of 1-2-3, so we all had copies. Then corporate said (correctly) that we couldn't use those and bought a copy from Lotus for each computer. We never opened the boxes, just kept using what we already had loaded (since it would boot without loading the floppy) but we had a box with a floppy for every work station.

Interesting OT story related to the above-- Mitch Kapur invented Visi-Calc as an MIT undergrad in 1978 or '79...made his first fortune off of it...enrolled in my 1st year class at MIT/Sloan in the Fall of '78 (one of 150 or us in the MBA class of 1980)...only to drop out to form Lotus in the Spring of '79. Really fun, down to earth guy for a genius, and nothing like the all-too-accurate MIT nerdy reputation (for most of the undergraduates).

(01-29-2014 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 12:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  I was at a big 8 CPA firm in that era and with a staff of about 300, my guess is that we didn't have more than about 25. I remember working on the first IBM AT desktop about 86. Around 83 or so, we had to go checkout the Lotus 123 disk and floppies were handed out judiciously and believe it or not, were numbered-not sure I ever understood why though.

That was a Lotus licensing requirement.

I was using them extensively by 1983-84. I think they were 256k PC's. I remember moving from an Apple with 64k and Visi-Calc and thinking what a huge step up that was. We've come a long way, baby!

Our corporate controller had found a hijacked version of 1-2-3, so we all had copies. Then corporate said (correctly) that we couldn't use those and bought a copy from Lotus for each computer. We never opened the boxes, just kept using what we already had loaded (since it would boot without loading the floppy) but we had a box with a floppy for every work station.

the numbering was BLANK floppies..........

(01-29-2014 12:08 PM)I45owl Wrote:  To be fair, I don't think I touched a PC until 1988, and I was an SE major. I used MACs around campus probably starting in 1986. Aside from that, I used SUN workstations and I couldn't see the department needing those. I can't remember if I used typewriters while I was at Rice, but it wouldn't surprise me if most work wasn't done on those.

What are these 'typewriters' of which you speak? Is that the thing where you make words with dots and dashes?