(12-15-2014 09:50 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2014 06:40 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  ...tinkering at the margins with the specifics of the fig leaves that cover this whole enterprise (let's face it, anything resembling true amateurism long ago went out the window - literally like a hundred years ago)...

Because - and critically, I am not sure the powers that be at Rice fully comprehend this - they have realized that even if you don't make a profit, big-time athletics still serves as a loss leader that more than pays back its investment to the university at large....

imagine what would happen to alumni giving at Oregon State or wherever if they were to drop down to a lower tier in football. It would dry up overnight, and IMO certainly would drop by more than whatever subsidy the athletic department receives from the university (through student fees or whatever). So that subsidy money is money well spent, and is why you won't be seeing any contraction in the P5.

TL; DR: Rice is playing a very dangerous game in trying to maintain its elite national stature in academics while cheaping out on subsidizing football, and in the meanwhile consorting with directional, open-admission schools we have zero in common with and which are damaging our brand, apparently in the hopes that there will soon be some further P5 shakeout in which some schools of our stature do drop down to rejoin us, stopping our bleeding. I think that's a fantasy. We need to go all in ASAP or we will, eventually, become Sewanee.

Post of the year! Well done, sir!

I take full credit for soliciting it.

(12-16-2014 08:01 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

Maybe so, but the publicity surrounding it was far worse than any misapplication of its recommendations IMO. No matter how 'rational' it would be to repeat it, it would be a horrible, horrible message to send today and would set us back even further in terms of national perception.

We don't need a new study. We simply need for our leaders to lead. The evidence is obvious.

(12-16-2014 08:01 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

Maybe so, but the publicity surrounding it was far worse than any misapplication of its recommendations IMO. No matter how 'rational' it would be to repeat it, it would be a horrible, horrible message to send today and would set us back even further in terms of national perception.

The publicity was horrible because the results didn't get used and applied and managed properly. Proper focus and emphasis on the actual results could have done more good than any harm done by the announcement of the study. Look, we commissioned this major study and they told us to do it right. There is a major need for a clean program that does it right and succeeds, and we are going to be that program. That could have been used as the inspiration to launch a major development effort. But that would have required vision.

Ei

(12-17-2014 06:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:01 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 03:20 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Thanks for the kind words! Well first of all, I don't think "spend more money" is an original idea, haha. But Walt, if you think JK, Leebron, or Bobby Tudor would benefit from hearing it, it will be much more effective coming from someone with relationships and influence like yourself or whomever rather than from some random alum they've never heard of, i.e., me. I'll PM my identity details to whomever wants them but I have no pride of authorship; I just want Rice to succeed. You might want to clean it up a bit first, though: I did call them cheap, after all. I also tend to say elitist things about our conference mates at times and I know that isn't diplomatic. (In my defense, this is the internet.)
The main point is that I just think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing, and urgently. Someone in a recent thread suggested maybe we need another McKinsey study since conditions on the ground have changed so much since the last one. I really, really agree with this, and frankly I think it's a better proposal and far more likely to gain traction than my wordy rant. I mean, I've made an argument for why I think we cannot go on doing what we're doing, and why I think significantly increasing our commitment to football (read, increasing the subsidy) could be justified (and I also think it would spur private donations as well, as opposed to us waiting for private donations to materialize and increase first like we seem to be doing now), and I've marshaled a little evidence for this view, but it's not researched with empirical data anywhere near the level of even a serious op-ed, much less a consultant's audit. So I'd suggest passing along that idea first!

I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

Maybe so, but the publicity surrounding it was far worse than any misapplication of its recommendations IMO. No matter how 'rational' it would be to repeat it, it would be a horrible, horrible message to send today and would set us back even further in terms of national perception.

The publicity was horrible because the results didn't get used and applied and managed properly. Proper focus and emphasis on the actual results could have done more good than any harm done by the announcement of the study. Look, we commissioned this major study and they told us to do it right. There is a major need for a clean program that does it right and succeeds, and we are going to be that program. That could have been used as the inspiration to launch a major development effort. But that would have required vision.

I don't disagree that we should have followed the recommendations and didn't, and I don't disagree that we'd be better not off today if we had, but you are just wrong that that was the reason the publicity was horrible. The publicity was horrible before the report was even released. Why do you think there was a groundswell of grass roots support, letters to the board, etc? The actual results were basically forgotten by all but The Parliament- all anyone cared about was 'are we dropping football???' The bad publicity was BECAUSE we commissioned the report in the first place, not because we didn't follow the recommendations. it was a horrible idea then and now and would be worse now.

(12-17-2014 08:36 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  Ei

(12-17-2014 06:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 08:01 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 07:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I disagree with the new McKinsey study idea. I know lots of you like to reference it on here, but what I remember was the press we got while it was going on last time, i.e. that we were considering dropping football. In light of UAB, I think it would be a terrible signal to send that we even had that on the radar. A private 'update' maybe, but not what we did last time. That was terrible

The problem with McKinsey was that we didn't make proper use of the results. It got portrayed as "oh, well, we don't need to drop football" and so we could continue the status quo. McKinsey was actually an excellent analysis, and perceived as so among many in the athletic department, that said was that it was time to do it right. We're only starting to absorb and apply that lesson now, at least partially.

Maybe so, but the publicity surrounding it was far worse than any misapplication of its recommendations IMO. No matter how 'rational' it would be to repeat it, it would be a horrible, horrible message to send today and would set us back even further in terms of national perception.

The publicity was horrible because the results didn't get used and applied and managed properly. Proper focus and emphasis on the actual results could have done more good than any harm done by the announcement of the study. Look, we commissioned this major study and they told us to do it right. There is a major need for a clean program that does it right and succeeds, and we are going to be that program. That could have been used as the inspiration to launch a major development effort. But that would have required vision.

I don't disagree that we should have followed the recommendations and didn't, and I don't disagree that we'd be better not off today if we had, but you are just wrong that that was the reason the publicity was horrible. The publicity was horrible before the report was even released. Why do you think there was a groundswell of grass roots support, letters to the board, etc? The actual results were basically forgotten by all but The Parliament- all anyone cared about was 'are we dropping football???' The bad publicity was BECAUSE we commissioned the report in the first place, not because we didn't follow the recommendations. it was a horrible idea then and now and would be worse now.

Agree

I'll put it another way

Let's say the board commissions a study and the apparent major conclusion of the study will be the disposition of the football program.

Let's say the study's conclusion is that you keep footballl, and then recommends certain paths forward. Or maybe more accurately, that IF you keep football, then this is the recommended path / actions that the university should take.

If, then, the people who commissioned the study in the first place do not take the recommended actions to support the program, at least some observers might question whether the report's conclusions were what the Board wanted to see at all.

I'll caveat this with the admission that I do not recall all of the report's recommendations, nor do I know to what extent the Board has actually followed the recommendations. But the feeling I've gotten from this thread and others in the past is that the Parliament feels the recommendations were ignored or only partially followed.

(12-17-2014 08:36 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 06:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The publicity was horrible because the results didn't get used and applied and managed properly. Proper focus and emphasis on the actual results could have done more good than any harm done by the announcement of the study. Look, we commissioned this major study and they told us to do it right. There is a major need for a clean program that does it right and succeeds, and we are going to be that program. That could have been used as the inspiration to launch a major development effort. But that would have required vision.

I don't disagree that we should have followed the recommendations and didn't, and I don't disagree that we'd be better not off today if we had, but you are just wrong that that was the reason the publicity was horrible. The publicity was horrible before the report was even released. Why do you think there was a groundswell of grass roots support, letters to the board, etc? The actual results were basically forgotten by all but The Parliament- all anyone cared about was 'are we dropping football???' The bad publicity was BECAUSE we commissioned the report in the first place, not because we didn't follow the recommendations. it was a horrible idea then and now and would be worse now.

But the publicity problem is that the ONLY publicity we got was the bad publicity at the start. What we failed to do is that when it was OVER, we should have taken that as the rationale for major upgrades. Yes the publicity at the start sucked. But if we had done what they recommended, that could have all been overcome in the wave of POSITIVE publicity that we would have generated by committing to do things right.

(12-17-2014 10:04 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  I'll caveat this with the admission that I do not recall all of the report's recommendations, nor do I know to what extent the Board has actually followed the recommendations. But the feeling I've gotten from this thread and others in the past is that the Parliament feels the recommendations were ignored or only partially followed.

The recommendations I recall were either obvious (try to raise money to endow athletics, raise money to rebuild Autry) or (often counterproductive) fluff about how athletes were admitted, advised, etc.

There was value in an evaluation of prospective options for Rice athletics, but the report wasn't exactly a beacon for moving forward, by my recollection.

As Hambone stated to me, the conclusion of the McKinsey Report was to be a successful national leader in FBS by aligning the goals of a major academic university and it's major athletic endeavors.

The question about keeping football and at what level athletic participation should remain has already been answered. If you task a follow-up study to answer the right questions, it could be a strong positive that directs vested constituants towards these common goals.

Specifically, what monitary and structural resources are needed? How much will it cost? Where are the resources invested? How much should each group be expected to contribute?

If you had a study that came out and said, Rice is staying at D1 FBS and to be successful it will need to do the following: 1) Create an $XXX athletic endowment; 2) The school should expect to invest $XXX annually; 3) The alumni should expect to contibute X% to the endowment and X% to facilities; 4) Philanthropy should contribute X%; 5) Season ticket sales should be XXX for sports Y and Z; 6) Athletic on-field results and community engagement need to be at a sufficient level to achieve #5. And to state the obvious, to be seen as a national leader, you have to be nationaly relevent. Of course, this arcs back to revenue capture.

Why can't you make the follow-up study a clarification of goals, a realistic cost to achieve these goals, and a tool to unify everyone behind these goals?

(12-17-2014 05:54 PM)ruowls Wrote:  As Hambone stated to me, the conclusion of the McKinsey Report was to be a successful national leader in FBS by aligning the goals of a major academic university and it's major athletic endeavors.
The question about keeping football and at what level athletic participation should remain has already been answered. If you task a follow-up study to answer the right questions, it could be a strong positive that directs vested constituants towards these common goals.
Specifically, what monitary and structural resources are needed? How much will it cost? Where are the resources invested? How much should each group be expected to contribute?
If you had a study that came out and said, Rice is staying at D1 FBS and to be successful it will need to do the following: 1) Create an $XXX athletic endowment; 2) The school should expect to invest $XXX annually; 3) The alumni should expect to contibute X% to the endowment and X% to facilities; 4) Philanthropy should contribute X%; 5) Season ticket sales should be XXX for sports Y and Z; 6) Athletic on-field results and community engagement need to be at a sufficient level to achieve #5. And to state the obvious, to be seen as a national leader, you have to be nationaly relevent. Of course, this arcs back to revenue capture.
Why can't you make the follow-up study a clarification of goals, a realistic cost to achieve these goals, and a tool to unify everyone behind these goals?

This is exactly what should have been done at the end of McKinsey. Make it McKinsey Phase II. Phase I said we stay D-1 and become a leader, Phase II tells us how to do it. This was my point about the publicity. Suppose it had been played that way, Phase I says do it, now we are doing Phase II to figure out how best to do that. But as I said before, that would have required vision--and leadership.

One thing that I have found very curious about the management of Rice athletics over the past five decades has been almost total inattention to the concept of revenues. The attitude has been almost like we're Rice, we don't do revenues. As somebody with a bit of strategy consulting in my background, the unwillingness even to focus on revenues as an objective has been totally mind-boggling.

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.

(12-17-2014 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 05:54 PM)ruowls Wrote:  As Hambone stated to me, the conclusion of the McKinsey Report was to be a successful national leader in FBS by aligning the goals of a major academic university and it's major athletic endeavors.
The question about keeping football and at what level athletic participation should remain has already been answered. If you task a follow-up study to answer the right questions, it could be a strong positive that directs vested constituants towards these common goals.
Specifically, what monitary and structural resources are needed? How much will it cost? Where are the resources invested? How much should each group be expected to contribute?
If you had a study that came out and said, Rice is staying at D1 FBS and to be successful it will need to do the following: 1) Create an $XXX athletic endowment; 2) The school should expect to invest $XXX annually; 3) The alumni should expect to contibute X% to the endowment and X% to facilities; 4) Philanthropy should contribute X%; 5) Season ticket sales should be XXX for sports Y and Z; 6) Athletic on-field results and community engagement need to be at a sufficient level to achieve #5. And to state the obvious, to be seen as a national leader, you have to be nationaly relevent. Of course, this arcs back to revenue capture.
Why can't you make the follow-up study a clarification of goals, a realistic cost to achieve these goals, and a tool to unify everyone behind these goals?

This is exactly what should have been done at the end of McKinsey. Make it McKinsey Phase II. Phase I said we stay D-1 and become a leader, Phase II tells us how to do it. This was my point about the publicity. Suppose it had been played that way, Phase I says do it, now we are doing Phase II to figure out how best to do that. But as I said before, that would have required vision--and leadership.

One thing that I have found very curious about the management of Rice athletics over the past five decades has been almost total inattention to the concept of revenues. The attitude has been almost like we're Rice, we don't do revenues. As somebody with a bit of strategy consulting in my background, the unwillingness even to focus on revenues as an objective has been totally mind-boggling.

That is, until Karlgaard and his team came along. Revenues are now the #1 priority of the Athletic Department, and rightfully so.

(12-17-2014 06:36 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  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.

Mike, though the report did, in fact, look at viable options, it pretty much concluded that option #1 (staying in Division I and aggressively work to improve toward Tier 1 status, and establishing Rice as a national leader-- and model-- in doing so) was the only one that made any sense for Rice. That was the primary conclusion and recommendation.

As an FYI, a group of 8 - 10 of us here on The Parliament revisited the McKinsey Study during the dark first half of the football season in 2012, and we prepared a white paper which we sent to Leebron. Upon Dr. K taking the reigns a year ago October, we modified that white paper a bit (as the football program was no longer in a death spiral), and shared it with him to give him some backround and perspective...and several of us, individually and in 1-on-1 sessions, provided him with our own take on the McKinsey Study-- then and now.

(12-17-2014 10:52 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 06:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 05:54 PM)ruowls Wrote:  As Hambone stated to me, the conclusion of the McKinsey Report was to be a successful national leader in FBS by aligning the goals of a major academic university and it's major athletic endeavors.
The question about keeping football and at what level athletic participation should remain has already been answered. If you task a follow-up study to answer the right questions, it could be a strong positive that directs vested constituants towards these common goals.
Specifically, what monitary and structural resources are needed? How much will it cost? Where are the resources invested? How much should each group be expected to contribute?
If you had a study that came out and said, Rice is staying at D1 FBS and to be successful it will need to do the following: 1) Create an $XXX athletic endowment; 2) The school should expect to invest $XXX annually; 3) The alumni should expect to contibute X% to the endowment and X% to facilities; 4) Philanthropy should contribute X%; 5) Season ticket sales should be XXX for sports Y and Z; 6) Athletic on-field results and community engagement need to be at a sufficient level to achieve #5. And to state the obvious, to be seen as a national leader, you have to be nationaly relevent. Of course, this arcs back to revenue capture.
Why can't you make the follow-up study a clarification of goals, a realistic cost to achieve these goals, and a tool to unify everyone behind these goals?

This is exactly what should have been done at the end of McKinsey. Make it McKinsey Phase II. Phase I said we stay D-1 and become a leader, Phase II tells us how to do it. This was my point about the publicity. Suppose it had been played that way, Phase I says do it, now we are doing Phase II to figure out how best to do that. But as I said before, that would have required vision--and leadership.

One thing that I have found very curious about the management of Rice athletics over the past five decades has been almost total inattention to the concept of revenues. The attitude has been almost like we're Rice, we don't do revenues. As somebody with a bit of strategy consulting in my background, the unwillingness even to focus on revenues as an objective has been totally mind-boggling.

That is, until Karlgaard and his team came along. Revenues are now the #1 priority of the Athletic Department, and rightfully so.

Absolutely correct, both that it is and that it is rightfully so.

(12-17-2014 05:54 PM)ruowls Wrote:  As Hambone stated to me, the conclusion of the McKinsey Report was to be a successful national leader in FBS by aligning the goals of a major academic university and it's major athletic endeavors.

The question about keeping football and at what level athletic participation should remain has already been answered. If you task a follow-up study to answer the right questions, it could be a strong positive that directs vested constituants towards these common goals.

Specifically, what monitary and structural resources are needed? How much will it cost? Where are the resources invested? How much should each group be expected to contribute?

If you had a study that came out and said, Rice is staying at D1 FBS and to be successful it will need to do the following: 1) Create an $XXX athletic endowment; 2) The school should expect to invest $XXX annually; 3) The alumni should expect to contibute X% to the endowment and X% to facilities; 4) Philanthropy should contribute X%; 5) Season ticket sales should be XXX for sports Y and Z; 6) Athletic on-field results and community engagement need to be at a sufficient level to achieve #5. And to state the obvious, to be seen as a national leader, you have to be nationaly relevent. Of course, this arcs back to revenue capture.

Why can't you make the follow-up study a clarification of goals, a realistic cost to achieve these goals, and a tool to unify everyone behind these goals?

Just wanted to say that this very much captures what I meant by calling for another "study." The first study resulted in a decision to stay at the FBS level, and to excel. The last thing I would want would be for that decision to be revisited at all (much less go through an agonizingly public reevaluation). Instead, further study must take that decision as a given, and be focused on how to effectuate the "decisive change" and excellence the first study called for.

Thanks to all the donors that helped fund the EZF. It is a bold move, but many more bold moves are needed, and soon.

(12-19-2014 01:17 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  Just wanted to say that this very much captures what I meant by calling for another "study." The first study resulted in a decision to stay at the FBS level, and to excel. The last thing I would want would be for that decision to be revisited at all (much less go through an agonizingly public reevaluation). Instead, further study must take that decision as a given, and be focused on how to effectuate the "decisive change" and excellence the first study called for.

Thanks to all the donors that helped fund the EZF. It is a bold move, but many more bold moves are needed, and soon.

I agree with you, Illiniowl. Another study would not be a "should Rice stay at Div I?" study, but would be more focused on specifically defining just how Rice intends to accomplish that. More of a marketing study. I believe JK has articulated some of that in broad terms already, and his background speaks well to his perspective and abilities. A study, or maybe a lesser defined but more specific and detailed plan/blueprint that is used as a marketing tool would be a welcome addition to the arsenal of tools JK is building up for Rice. Either way, I am happy with what JK has done so far.