(11-28-2014 10:48 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  Does SMU Alums have more money then the Rice Alums or just more dedication to a successful program?

SMU has approximately 50% more undergrads, and I would assume that they have plenty of wealthy alumni that care much more about athletics than Rice does.

(11-28-2014 10:48 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  Does SMU Alums have more money then the Rice Alums or just more dedication to a successful program?

The former, but that's largely because SMU matriculants have more money than Rice matriculants.

The two most popular degrees at SMU are the Mrs. and D.Bag.

I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

(11-28-2014 02:36 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots.
CDC made clear that it took a firm, clear, tangible commitment from the university to get donors to open their wallets.
As far as I can tell, Rice as a whole still has significant institutional ambivalence about D1 athletics in general and football in particular. And undoubtedly this inhibits our fundraising ability. Fix the former, including seeding the rain clouds by upping the University's subsidy to athletics, and *then* let's see what our donors will be willing to do. I have a hard time believing we could not stack up to TCU/SMU levels.

(11-28-2014 06:55 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:36 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots.
CDC made clear that it took a firm, clear, tangible commitment from the university to get donors to open their wallets.
As far as I can tell, Rice as a whole still has significant institutional ambivalence about D1 athletics in general and football in particular. And undoubtedly this inhibits our fundraising ability. Fix the former, including seeding the rain clouds by upping the University's subsidy to athletics, and *then* let's see what our donors will be willing to do. I have a hard time believing we could not stack up to TCU/SMU levels.

Wow. THIS THIS THIS. Great post!

The university better wake up. They cannot play on both sides of the fence. The academics has to sacrifice too to be a competitive D1 university in athletics. If the university is unwilling to show it is dedicated to athletics, donors will not come. It is embarrassing we only pay $700 K to a head football couch. We need to pay $1 mm for ahead football couch or forget about moving out of CUSA. Are we that damn poor ? Excellent points -> " This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots."

(11-29-2014 12:10 AM)OldOwl Wrote:  The university better wake up. They cannot play on both sides of the fence. The academics has to sacrifice too to be a competitive D1 university in athletics. If the university is unwilling to show it is dedicated to athletics, donors will not come. It is embarrassing we only pay $700 K to a head football couch. We need to pay $1 mm for ahead football couch or forget about moving out of CUSA. Are we that damn poor ?

If the question is between athletics and academics, then we'd better not choose the way you're agitating for. Most of us here believe it can be done with both.

Also, 700k is far too much to pay annually for a couch. Mattress Mac will get one for us for much, much cheaper.

(11-28-2014 06:55 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:36 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots.
CDC made clear that it took a firm, clear, tangible commitment from the university to get donors to open their wallets.
As far as I can tell, Rice as a whole still has significant institutional ambivalence about D1 athletics in general and football in particular. And undoubtedly this inhibits our fundraising ability. Fix the former, including seeding the rain clouds by upping the University's subsidy to athletics, and *then* let's see what our donors will be willing to do. I have a hard time believing we could not stack up to TCU/SMU levels.

I listened to the presentation on XM radio Thursday night and, as always, was tremendously impressed by CDC. Three thoughts came out of that. First, his decision to leave Rice for TCU is understandable. Second, after having worked with him for years, how could President Leebron pick who he did as the replacement? At least, that error has been corrected. Finally, CDC's decision to hire Bailiff is looking better at this point than it did after 2007.

I was at Rice in the 70's when we were still a part of the SWC. But even then, our commitment to athletics was at a lower level than the other conference schools, some of whom were rotten with corruption. Many of my professors were ambivalent at best about the athletic department which appeared to be in a bubble outside of the rest of the University. One semester I shared a suite at SRC with a couple of football players who lived in that bubble. While they were not bad guys, they didn't have to eat with us and, as Commerce majors, did not have much interaction academically or socially, as they both joined fraternities at UofH. Of course, there were exceptions to this by athletes who were SE of LA majors and who also made an effort to be part of regular student body. As I got to know them, I realized how hard it was for them to do that and to play football.

I would speculate that there are still those in the faculty, administration and Board who do not think that athletic success and academics are related. I bet that this sentiment will get stronger as the P5 conferences start paying players. Dr. K has his work cut out for him.

(11-29-2014 09:31 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 06:55 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:36 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots.
CDC made clear that it took a firm, clear, tangible commitment from the university to get donors to open their wallets.
As far as I can tell, Rice as a whole still has significant institutional ambivalence about D1 athletics in general and football in particular. And undoubtedly this inhibits our fundraising ability. Fix the former, including seeding the rain clouds by upping the University's subsidy to athletics, and *then* let's see what our donors will be willing to do. I have a hard time believing we could not stack up to TCU/SMU levels.

I listened to the presentation on XM radio Thursday night and, as always, was tremendously impressed by CDC. Three thoughts came out of that. First, his decision to leave Rice for TCU is understandable. Second, after having worked with him for years, how could President Leebron pick who he did as the replacement? At least, that error has been corrected. Finally, CDC's decision to hire Bailiff is looking better at this point than it did after 2007.

I was at Rice in the 70's when we were still a part of the SWC. But even then, our commitment to athletics was at a lower level than the other conference schools, some of whom were rotten with corruption. Many of my professors were ambivalent at best about the athletic department which appeared to be in a bubble outside of the rest of the University. One semester I shared a suite at SRC with a couple of football players who lived in that bubble. While they were not bad guys, they didn't have to eat with us and, as Commerce majors, did not have much interaction academically or socially, as they both joined fraternities at UofH. Of course, there were exceptions to this by athletes who were SE of LA majors and who also made an effort to be part of regular student body. As I got to know them, I realized how hard it was for them to do that and to play football.

I would speculate that there are still those in the faculty, administration and Board who do not think that athletic success and academics are related. I bet that this sentiment will get stronger as the P5 conferences start paying players. Dr. K has his work cut out for him.

Of course, there are some in the faculty that feel that way; there always will be (and such sentiment is not limited to Rice and elite academic institutions). However, it is far from the sentiment of the majority of the faculty, many of whom are regulars at the Big 3 sporting events....and Dean Hutch and President Leebron attend almost all sporting events (something I cannot remember a former dean or president doing dating all the way back to my days on campus in the 1970s). As for the BOT, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single current member who is not an advocate for success in athletics, and moving us to the next level. Since Dr. K has arrived, budgets have been increased almost across the board (though I'm not sure if that means the subsidy has increased). Baby steps, but definitely progress.

(11-29-2014 09:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 09:31 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 06:55 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 02:36 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I don't think we really know what Rice's athletic fundraising capacity is. For years the conventional wisdom has been that Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success. Obviously Wayne Graham disproved the myth, but then a new one replaced it: Rice's academic requirements, whatever they are, are an insurmountable obstacle to on-field success, except in baseball.

Given that deeply-ingrained mindset, it can't be easy to convince people to donate millions to facilities and coaches.

This. I watched a replay on C-SPAN this morning of a panel discussion held at the National Press Club in October on college athletics revenue issues. CDC was one of the panelists, and a point he made repeatedly was that TCU, from the chancellor's office on down, decided it would do whatever it took - which apparently included increasing the university's subsidy to athletics - to get back to the P5, because the apathy engendered by playing schools with which they had nothing in common (San Diego State, Fresno State, etc.) was jeopardizing their whole institution. They saw investing in football as investing in their whole university - in fact, as saving their university from oblivion. And over the last 10 years they have seen their yearly applications go from 7K to 20K and their USNWR ranking go up 30 spots.
CDC made clear that it took a firm, clear, tangible commitment from the university to get donors to open their wallets.
As far as I can tell, Rice as a whole still has significant institutional ambivalence about D1 athletics in general and football in particular. And undoubtedly this inhibits our fundraising ability. Fix the former, including seeding the rain clouds by upping the University's subsidy to athletics, and *then* let's see what our donors will be willing to do. I have a hard time believing we could not stack up to TCU/SMU levels.

I listened to the presentation on XM radio Thursday night and, as always, was tremendously impressed by CDC. Three thoughts came out of that. First, his decision to leave Rice for TCU is understandable. Second, after having worked with him for years, how could President Leebron pick who he did as the replacement? At least, that error has been corrected. Finally, CDC's decision to hire Bailiff is looking better at this point than it did after 2007.

I was at Rice in the 70's when we were still a part of the SWC. But even then, our commitment to athletics was at a lower level than the other conference schools, some of whom were rotten with corruption. Many of my professors were ambivalent at best about the athletic department which appeared to be in a bubble outside of the rest of the University. One semester I shared a suite at SRC with a couple of football players who lived in that bubble. While they were not bad guys, they didn't have to eat with us and, as Commerce majors, did not have much interaction academically or socially, as they both joined fraternities at UofH. Of course, there were exceptions to this by athletes who were SE of LA majors and who also made an effort to be part of regular student body. As I got to know them, I realized how hard it was for them to do that and to play football.

I would speculate that there are still those in the faculty, administration and Board who do not think that athletic success and academics are related. I bet that this sentiment will get stronger as the P5 conferences start paying players. Dr. K has his work cut out for him.

Of course, there are some in the faculty that feel that way; there always will be (and such sentiment is not limited to Rice and elite academic institutions). However, it is far from the sentiment of the majority of the faculty, many of whom are regulars at the Big 3 sporting events....and Dean Hutch and President Leebron attend almost all sporting events (something I cannot remember a former dean or president doing dating all the way back to my days on campus in the 1970s). As for the BOT, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single current member who is not an advocate for success in athletics, and moving us to the next level. Since Dr. K has arrived, budgets have been increased almost across the board (though I'm not sure if that means the subsidy has increased). Baby steps, but definitely progress.

Thanks, Walt. That is good to know.

Couple comments while watching warm ups...Both TCU and SMU have a number of wealthy alums/fans who provide the big bucks for athletics. For TCU it was the group of 20 who paid to hire Franchione, paid to have ESPN carry all Frog games on the extra DTV football tier, and helped fund the conference shifts. This laid the groundwork from just saying TCU is top tier(which was laughed at then) to where they now are. This success allowed the to go out beyond the originals donors to new ones.

For SMU they had one donor who paid for the football stadium and they had a group who paid for June Jones and now Larry Brown. Unlike TCU the football investment has not attracted a great deal of new money or translated to increase attendance. In basketball it did work and they were able to lure Brown with money and a promise to improve Moody.

We have not (yet) seen this work or attempted save for baseball. We will see if JK can get it rolling.

As far as Leebron and the hire of Ranger Rick...it was Robin Foreman who led the search and pushed for RG...it was Leebron's fault for just going along with it. Just check the members of the RG committee vs that of those on the JK committee to see how much more consideration was done.

(11-29-2014 11:26 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  As far as Leebron and the hire of Ranger Rick...it was Robin Foreman who led the search and pushed for RG...it was Leebron's fault for just going along with it. Just check the members of the RG committee vs that of those on the JK committee to see how much more consideration was done.

Well, it was his first chance to hire an AD, so perhaps I was too hard on him. But he did fix it and looks to have done a good job with Dr. K.

(11-29-2014 07:34 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2014 11:26 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  As far as Leebron and the hire of Ranger Rick...it was Robin Foreman who led the search and pushed for RG...it was Leebron's fault for just going along with it. Just check the members of the RG committee vs that of those on the JK committee to see how much more consideration was done.

Well, it was his first chance to hire an AD, so perhaps I was too hard on him. But he did fix it and looks to have done a good job with Dr. K.

Agreed - but much of the conference affiliation mess unfortunately took place during the calamitous Ranger Rick era.

(11-29-2014 11:26 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  As far as Leebron and the hire of Ranger Rick...it was Robin Foreman who led the search and pushed for RG...it was Leebron's fault for just going along with it. Just check the members of the RG committee vs that of those on the JK committee to see how much more consideration was done.

Leebron's mistake was trusting Foreman--who proved himself unworthy of that trust.

,I hope we have hired our last retread-Greenspan, Peterson, braun, Polk, hell even heisman, all disasters. Hatfield clearly the exception.

Not sure how clear, but agree.

(11-29-2014 11:24 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  Hatfield clearly the exception.

Maybe the first part of his tenure. Don't forget how far down he had taken the program by the time he was replaced.

Back to the original thread title for a moment.

I think it will be a LONG time before Bailiff is mentioned for another coaching vacancy.

I'm deeply skeptical that any AD would have put him forward for an FBS job even before La Tech. I have always been very confident it will never happen in P5, but today removed any doubt.

(11-29-2014 07:45 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  Agreed - but much of the conference affiliation mess unfortunately took place during the calamitous Ranger Rick era.

I'm no fan of Ranger Rick, but that's because he was an incompetent a-hole generally, not because he failed to navigate the conference affiliation mess.

There is no AD who could have gotten us a better deal, because basically we were the homeliest of homely girls at the dance. In the prior ten years, our football team had won 4, 5, 3, 1, 7, 3, 10, 2, 4, and 4 games, and our basketball team had won 19, 22, 19, 12, 6, 3, 10, 8, 14, and 19. Baseball was great, but baseball doesn't bring enough money to excite anybody. That wasn't a hand that anybody could have played into a major conference invite.

Of course, it could be said that the only logical justification for hiring him was some expectation that he COULD navigate the minefield and get us through, and if so then he failed miserably at that, too.