To be frank, this thread isn't even really worthy of a response as it IS completely 'irresponsible speculation' as you note. However, as you admit you don't know anything, I will respond so that you (and anyone else who wants to know) will now know more
(12-31-2014 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote: Fact 1. G5 schools are running steady $10-20M athletic deficits, including Rice.
Fact 2. Non-FBS schools are running $10-$15M athletic deficits.
These two, in conjunction, generally mean that dropping from FBS is a bad idea.
This is true, and while 10-20mm annually is a lot of money, when you net out scholarship costs (which is what our massive endowment is intended to fund, as it funds education, not athletics) we don't lose that much, and it is money well spent in terms of national recognition. With all due respect, the recognition that a top academic school gets for winning athletics is FAR greater than what 'middle of the pack' academic schools get for it. More on this later.
Quote:Fact 3. Rice's stadium is over 50 years old, and new stadiums are expensive.
But we don't need a new stadium. Our site-lines are outstanding and the structure is in great shape. Sure, we need some updates and we're making them. LOTS of football stadiums are as old or older than ours.
Quote:Conjecture: With the escalating cost of competing in FBS, that $10-20 number becomes $15-25.
and better than any other g5 school, we have the endowment to manage it.
Quote:Fact 4. Looking at an athletic conference as a group of peers, Rice has shifted from having peer-competitors SMU, Tulane and Tulsa to a conference completely composed of large, public, academically weak schools (compared to Rice). I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone in C-USA 2015 is in the US News Top 200 National Universities.
True, I think UAB was around 150.... and even SMU Tulane and Tulsa were around 55, while we are in the top 20... which makes us absolutely unique in this space and is a massive recruiting advantage. Consider that while STanford is clearly better than most state schools, there are 3 schools in their own conference and more than 20 p5 schools within 40 spots of them. There are only 3 g5 schools within 40 spots of us and you probably have to go to more than 100 to get number 4 and number 200 to get 20 of them. We are FAR more unique in g5 than Stanford is in p5.
Quote:Fact 5. Rice had McKinsey consulting look at their Division options in 2004. McKinsey recommended Division III, before an alumni and booster backlash changed the Board of Trustee's minds.
Fact 5a. Those boosters and alumni, and Rice's SWC glory days, are 10 years older.
Not factual whatsoever. I suggest you read the McKinsey report which a) never made any single recommendation... it merely presented options... pros and cons... and b) the BOT NEVER 'changed it's mind'. I'd note that the Chairman of the BOT along with numerous other members are former D-1 athletes... and the Chairman's name is on our recently renovated basketball Arena.
We routinely review athletics as we review ALL of our programs... Generally every 10-15 years. McKinsey DID NOT recommend Division III as the primary cost savings is scholarships, but the vast majority of Rice students get Endowment Funded scholarships, which means unlike state schools, the 'savings' is really inconsequential to us. McKinsey itself noted that the alumni and booster backlash from dropping to d-III would have likely cost the endowment far more than it would have saved us. One of our biggest contributors (still) is the family/company that built our 70,000 seat stadium in 9 months... and numerous buildings on campus are named for them.
As to our glory days, with 19 conference championships in a row in baseball and a National Championship in baseball, plus a conference title in football and 3 bowls in a row... not to mention numerous other titles in Olympic sports... while it may not be the SWC days, it isn't the SWC days for ANYONE in CUSA, and by CUSA standards, we're among the leaders (and by a large margin over many)
Quote:Fact 6. Rice would be a good fit, profile-wise, with the Division III UAA--Chicago, Brandeis, NYU, Carnegie-Mellon, Washington U in St. Louis. http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/
True, but given the lack of cost savings plus the now non-regional conference (which means significant travel costs for all sports and ZERO revenue), you've really lost any advantages. A regional conference would put Rice with teams that aren't remotely good fits for us, profile-wise and would potentially damage our academic reputation.
THIS is ACTUALLY what McKinsey said.
Quote:I wonder if the answer to C-USA being at 13 is Rice folding.
A FAR better question is why you think the school that has won a NC in baseball and has been the conference champ (either reg season or tourney) EVERY year in the league... won the conference in football last year and been to three straight bowls, who recently renovated their basketball arena, is building a new Tennis facility (funded and under construction), continuously updates our relatively new baseball facility, recently built a new pool and just announced a 30+mm FULLY FUNDED renovation to our +/- 50,000 seat on-campus stadium...... 'folding' is the
answer.