(12-31-2014 11:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Everyone who has moved from FCS to FBS lately has been a large-enrollment public university. Rice looks a lot more like Villanova than UConn. (No slight to UConn)

But Rice is already in. And the cost to remain in is pennies to them.

(12-31-2014 11:05 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  DISCLAIMER: I don't know anybody, and nobody I know knows anything. This is based on no inside information at all, just on "the shape of the river."

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.

Fact 3. Rice's stadium is over 50 years old, and new stadiums are expensive.

Conjecture: With the escalating cost of competing in FBS, that $10-20 number becomes $15-25.

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.

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.

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/

I wonder if the answer to C-USA being at 13 is Rice folding.

Rice just announced a significant stadium facility change. Rice Stadium need a freshen-up, no doubt, but it is an excellent facility under the dirt. The north end-zone will be completely rebuilt, an investment of $31mm. See: http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/...26318101=0

But football is not the only sport. Reckling is an excellent baseball stadium. Tudor Fieldhouse had an eight figure makeover in the recent past.

The McKinsey study did not recommend D3. It stated, with plenty of justification, that the choice was between D1A and D3. The stops in-between would not be prudent. Rice chose D1A and will remain there for the foreseeable future. For those nterested, the study is here: http://professor.rice.edu/images/professor/report.pdf

Yes, the OP misinterpreted what that study said.

I do think there is one potential option that didn't exist before. That would be if the BE had an inclination to expand to Texas. Probably not, but it is possible.

Years ago, I spoke with he SMU president and asked him about proposing this conference:

Boston College
Duke
Wake Forest
Miami
Vanderbilt
Tulane
Rice
SMU
TCU
Baylor
Northwestern
Notre Dame
BYU
Stanford

He thought it was a nice idea ... an Ivy League for the 21st century. But he politelly said it would never work. I was young and naive.

(12-31-2014 11:21 AM)panama Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 11:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Everyone who has moved from FCS to FBS lately has been a large-enrollment public university. Rice looks a lot more like Villanova than UConn. (No slight to UConn)

But Rice is already in. And the cost to remain in is pennies to them.

I'm looking at it from a different perspective: What would be the costs of leaving FBS? And that's lower for Rice than it is for just about everyone else in FBS. Or in other words, Rice gets less benefit from being in FBS than other FBS schools.

(12-31-2014 01:02 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 11:21 AM)panama Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 11:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Everyone who has moved from FCS to FBS lately has been a large-enrollment public university. Rice looks a lot more like Villanova than UConn. (No slight to UConn)

But Rice is already in. And the cost to remain in is pennies to them.

I'm looking at it from a different perspective: What would be the costs of leaving FBS? And that's lower for Rice than it is for just about everyone else in FBS. Or in other words, Rice gets less benefit from being in FBS than other FBS schools.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Rice gets tremendous visibility from being in FBS. Otherwise we'd be nothing more than another Case Western, Carnegie-Mellon, or WashU. Instead we're more in line with Stanford, Duke, and Northwestern.

With their football stadium plans and great d1 baseball program, i don't see why they would go d3. Yet, they could fit into this conference

http://www.uaa.rochester.edu

but i don't think they would save much $. Those school's still give out scholarships just called something other than athletic.

(12-31-2014 10:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 10:22 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  DISCLAIMER: I don't know anybody, and nobody I know knows anything. This is based on no inside information at all, just on "the shape of the river."

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.

Fact 3. Rice's stadium is over 50 years old, and new stadiums are expensive.

Conjecture: With the escalating cost of competing in FBS, that $10-20 number becomes $15-25.

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.

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.

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/

I wonder if the answer to C-USA being at 13 is Rice folding.

These are questions that will get asked more and more frequently. As I have said, IMO, sustaining FBS outside the "Power" division is simply not feasible. The obvious choices are: 1) Discontinue FB and stay at D1 for other sports, 2) Drop FB down to FCS and stay at D1 for other sports. It would be interesting to see if a 3rd option develops...similar to the Ivy and Pioneer conferences in FCS... for a FBS-non scholarship conference, but this is not in existence at this point. (If you could get two such non-scholarship FB conferences, you could do your own bowl game.)
Rice is burdened with a huge stadium that cannot really sustain FCS football in it's current state. It could, however, be rebuilt downward in stages to make it more suitable for FCS type crowds.
\

There is no such thing as FBS non-scholarship - since to be in FBS it requires a certain level of scholarships. You could have a FCS level non-scholarship conference (think Ivy League) and you could then do a bowl game (like the old Northeast - Pioneer game, or the upcoming (2015) MEAC-SWAC game.

Rice is closer to joining the PAC 12 than dropping to FCS. They really need 3 things:
1. Maintain or improve their level of competitiveness in football.
2. Upgrade their football facilities.
3. Improve their competitiveness in basketball.

(12-31-2014 01:28 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Rice is closer to joining the PAC 12 than dropping to FCS. They really need 3 things:
1. Maintain or improve their level of competitiveness in football.
2. Upgrade their football facilities.
3. Improve their competitiveness in basketball.

Rice needs one more thing before they're going to be acceptable to the Pac12. The Owls need the folks out west to actually want them to join. Right now that isn't the case. It may never be, unless they are critical to persuading the Longhorns to come along. So it's extremely long odds at best.

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.

(12-31-2014 11:06 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Rice is not looking at the same sort of return from sinking $20M a year into staying in FBS, plus the cost of a new stadium. I don't think athletics is doing much to keep Rice in the USNWR top 25. They're in a position to look at the balance sheet and say "we're not doing that."

You will find Rice alumni arguing a slow erosion in the USNWR ratings has correlated to the mess we made of athletics (outside of baseball and our newfound football success under David Bailiff). And the inexplicable rise of TCU and Baylor might be related to their recent athletic success.

(12-31-2014 01:02 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm looking at it from a different perspective: What would be the costs of leaving FBS? And that's lower for Rice than it is for just about everyone else in FBS. Or in other words, Rice gets less benefit from being in FBS than other FBS schools.

Since you referenced McKinsey, I suggest you read it.


First, Division 3 would require that we drop baseball... which we won't do and was never seriously considered by the board in 2004, after winning the NC in baseball in 2003.

Under 'less attractive options are
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.

Option 1 isn't viable because it violates their rules.

As to the other options,

Quote:Division II in any form and the NAIA appear unattractive because these options would place Rice in a peer group antithetical to Rice in almost every regard, and such association could even damage the University’s reputation. Substantially weaker, less academically able, and financially unstable schools would compete with Rice.

Under viable options were
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).
3. Move to NCAA Division I-AAA (no football).
4. Move to NCAA Division III (non-scholarship athletics with a
fundamentally different institutional emphasis).
Remain in Division I-A, but aggressively work to


Numerous pages were devoted to number 1.
w/r/t 2, they said

Quote:Despite such potential benefits, a move to Division I-AA for Rice would be
complicated by a lack of appreciable net cost savings, upset constituents, and,most importantly, conference realignment. At a minimum, moving to Division IAA
would necessitate that Rice find a new conference in which to play football.
While it is possible that Rice could remain in C-USA for all other sports except
football, it is far from certain that such a split conference model is workable.
Wholesale departure from C-USA for all sports is even less appealing as there are
no other conferences that fit well with both Rice’s geography and its academic
peer profile.

I'd also note that at the time, the 'cost savings' of going to d-III from CUSA was $4.2mm. That's not 'nothing', but they also noted that it would fundamentally change the sort of University that Rice is.... From being viewed as a Unique, major National University into one of DOZENS 'small liberal arts college'. COnsidering our endowment is something like 6billion, not to mention our growing athletic endowment... 4.2mm is a rounding error not worth changing 'who we are' for.

I think Rice will eventually go to the AAC in the next few years. I believe that the University of Houston is an expansion candidate for the Big 12 and that will leave the Houston market open for the AAC.

Rice in the AAC will be a good fit as they would join 3 more private schools:
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

(12-31-2014 01:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

That's a really good point. If the savings on athletic scholarships are negated by equal increases in academic scholarships, then there's no savings there.

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]

I'm not sure how much being the top academic school in the G5 gets you, especially with SMU and Tulane and Tulsa in the same region. Stanford and Duke and Northwestern and Notre Dame(sometimes) run the pool of FBS talent with Rice-caliber academics pretty dry.

On reflection, I might be overestimating the negatives for Rice in associating athletically with "academic inferiors." Anyone who somehow gets the idea that Rice and UNT or UTSA have some academic overlap isn't really Rice material.

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. [/quote]

I did read the report today, and I was relying on quick articles summarizing rumors of what the report was saying before it was out. The report was pretty emphatic that nothing between I-A and Division III was an option.

Quote: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)

And if the Rice community is happy, there's no problem.

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]

The advantages would be in cost savings vs an even-more-expensive FBS plus significant new-stadium cost.

And I'm not sure "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." is that different than what you have now. But as I said above, if you're confusing UTSA and Rice academically because of CUSA, you're probably not getting admitted to Rice anyway.

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.
[/quote]

Because sometimes the game isn't worth the prize.

(12-31-2014 01:31 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:28 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Rice is closer to joining the PAC 12 than dropping to FCS. They really need 3 things:
1. Maintain or improve their level of competitiveness in football.
2. Upgrade their football facilities.
3. Improve their competitiveness in basketball.

Rice needs one more thing before they're going to be acceptable to the Pac12. The Owls need the folks out west to actually want them to join. Right now that isn't the case. It may never be, unless they are critical to persuading the Longhorns to come along. So it's extremely long odds at best.

Absolutely, they need an invite and that is nowhere in the offing. However, one of the major benefits in Rice's favor is I don't think they need to be with Texas in order to be acceptable to the PAC 12. As you stated, the PAC 12 may be waiting on Texas forever. The PAC 12 has no need of expansion but should an incentive ever present itself and Texas remains unavailable Rice checks many of the boxes without many of the negatives of other schools including Texas. Not every PAC 12 school is interested in having Texas (or the rest of the Texahoma 4) in the conference. Of course $$$ talks so they would make due. It is all hypothetical but since the thread was about reckless, irresponsible speculation why not throw it out there.

(12-31-2014 01:55 PM)Tiger Rag Wrote:  I think Rice will eventually go to the AAC in the next few years. I believe that the University of Houston is an expansion candidate for the Big 12 and that will leave the Houston market open for the AAC.

Rice in the AAC will be a good fit as they would join 3 more private schools:
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

been there, done that, twice now. They've probably worn out their welcome with us. Of course we will do what is best for us... and if that means the AAC, then fine... but I doubt we would change just to rejoin them.

I don't think UH will be a candidate for the Big12 as long as UT runs that show. UH recruits many of the same athletes that UT does and from many of the same areas. Adding them to the conference would 'dilute' the Big12 relative to the SEC and nobody in the Big12 needs better access to the city of Houston. They'll take UTSA before they take UH. UH seems to me to be a better candidate for the ACC or even the SEC rather than the Big12.

I think the drivers of the next moves will be
a) the Big12 needing a conference championship to improve their chances of a playoff bid
b) the SEC needing to not kill itself in conference games and cost itself 2 or even 3 shots at the playoffs.

Rice to the AAC is far more likely than Rice to any power conference.

(12-31-2014 02:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:55 PM)Tiger Rag Wrote:  I think Rice will eventually go to the AAC in the next few years. I believe that the University of Houston is an expansion candidate for the Big 12 and that will leave the Houston market open for the AAC.

Rice in the AAC will be a good fit as they would join 3 more private schools:
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

been there, done that, twice now. They've probably worn out their welcome with us. Of course we will do what is best for us... and if that means the AAC, then fine... but I doubt we would change just to rejoin them.

Beat me to it and summarized it quite nicely. The smaller private schools are better off dispersed in separate conferences. When the four of us are together, the cumulative effects of smaller alumni bases and lesser attendance is evident. I think the AAC already has one too many privates, and this could hurt them in the long run. Note all three of the AAC privates struggled this year in football and two of them fired their coaches.

(12-31-2014 02:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Rice to the AAC is far more likely than Rice to any power conference.

Yep, teams don't jump from CUSA to a power conference.

The AAC chose Houston over Rice for a reason.

(12-31-2014 01:23 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  There is no such thing as FBS non-scholarship - since to be in FBS it requires a certain level of scholarships. You could have a FCS level non-scholarship conference (think Ivy League) and you could then do a bowl game (like the old Northeast - Pioneer game, or the upcoming (2015) MEAC-SWAC game.

There already is an FCS non-scholarship conference other than the Ivy League.

The Pioneer Football League is a football-only conference for D-I schools that play non-scholarship FCS football. The Pioneer schools play their other sports in leagues that don't sponsor football (e.g., Butler in the Big East and San Diego in the West Coast Conference).

The Pioneer champion gets an autobid to the FCS playoffs.