(02-14-2023 06:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If you can figure out how to win without integrating with the University in order to get the 'buy in' necessary to do what we both probably agree needs to be done then more power to you... and we don't need to integrate. SOme very smart people have been after that for decades now without success.

Yeah, I'll agree and I've often posted here and in the Transformation thread and elsewhere that attitude is the main problem, so I do get where you are coming from. I just don't think the same people in the same entrenched positions will care any more about athletics enough to 'buy in' to them because they seem predisposed to dislike athletics, especially the big three, and short iof changing the people themselves I don't know much that will change that. But tht's just observing the past 60 or so years, so maybe I'm wrong.

(02-14-2023 06:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I've said... we've been trucking generators in for decades. Why do YOU think we haven't made them permanent?

Because it appears those in power have a, well to me insane bias against really doing what is necessary to help athletics and use it as a marketing tool, while at the same time having an insane bias towards pursuing virtue-signalling type of projects with relatively unlimited gobs of university resources and cash and some of those and some of the partners in those endeavors go directly against American national interests. I don't think that level of ingrained insanity and bias will change just because they put solar panels or wind turbines on the stadium, but if you do, then go for it. Again, I would like the significant negative environmental and ecological effects accounted for and a large on-campus Landfill to help offset those negative effects from Solar and Wind would be a start so we can try to contain the mess somewhat responsibly on our own turf. All outward signs seem to point to they appear to hate football (well, top-level competition in college football). There's no other way to say it. As an American from the South that to me is insane, especially considering the storied football history of the school. Not dislike, they hate it, and they do not appear to want it to really succeed, but they grudgingly seem to accept that in Texas it has to still be here...for now.

(02-14-2023 06:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  100k is a rounding error to what we've spent on the EZF, the north fields and south additions, plus the new stadium improvements. I mean, you seem to think all we have to do is fund 100k... so why haven't we while we've raised some $100mm?? Spedning probably ten thousand dollars each time we rent them?

I just wanted to solve the problem. It appears they do not. We both seem to agree they could easily do so. I said their decision making certainly appears insane to me, I think you just illustrated that. Also said they appear to hate the big sports at this level, again seems to jibe (not jive) with what you said.

(02-14-2023 06:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And there is nothing for us to 'fund' in my ideas. All we have to do is let the University do what it was probably going to do anyway.

So, they weren't going to do Grease or Nuclear engineering anyway and they no longer care about oil and gas. Also insane to me, but if you say so.

(02-14-2023 06:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And I'm not really doing this to drive more interest in football... in the way that 'winning' would. I'm doing this to drive more interest from people who don't care one bit about athletics and SURE don't support spending tens of millions of dollars on it to allow those of us who DO care about athletics to do so... and in my mind, that comes from them seeing a USE for athletics or at least our facilities.

It seems you agree with me. And I don't think your idea will make them care. Neither will mine, I suppose. But I'd rather do mine for the environmental and ecological reasons I've been pointing out given a choice.
Again, going down the road you originally laid out, my point was to bring to light that solar and wind are not the problem-free magic solutions they are made out to be. While having nothing to do with football, it was the fact you mentioned them here. Now if you are saying we don't have a choice, well, that's kind of the problem with the "green" bias...it seems less and less about rational choice and more and more about quasi-religious dogma not based on objective truth. I'm just not down for that.

I'm sorry we have so many people associated with Rice that appear to dislike what I have said before is a big part of mainstream American culture so much. Had I known this before I matriculated I suppose I wouldn't have. Being in the SWC and competing at Div I, I thought we were like Vandy or Duke and thought it noble that we stayed the course, as Kennedy once said 'because it is hard to keep playing Texas when you're Rice." (I'm paraphrasing there.) It seemed a cool, little school with a beautiful campus. What can I say? I usually root for the underdogs.
But it's my school too, and there ARE some people who played here and went here who do care. But too few on the level of a Youngkin or a Tudor, or a Patterson who care that much. It'd be nice to have Rice decide to rejoin mainstream America, but I'm not holding my breath, except when I walk around a dead Hawk carcass sliced open by a windmill blade moving at about 180 per. My thoughts and prayers are with its orphaned family. Sorry, I'm a soft touch for those beautiful birds.

Just a summary, Good...

I believe that your position on solar and wind is clouding this conversation. I threw those out as examples that made sense to me... NOT from a 'this is a good idea' point of view, because it doesn't matter what I think about it... but from the standpoint of what does the University and those who fund this sort of research think about it. Grease and nat gas make sense where grease and nat gas are... and we are certainly one of those places... but LOTS of places in the world (especially those with real power needs) don't have nearby concentrations of grease and nat gas... so the applications of any technology advancements are limited, and the general technology has been around for decades. My OPINION is that this tech is mostly played out from an institutional research standpoint.

Note that I haven't yet mentioned the fact that there is lots of opposition globally to burning oil and gas, even grease... and lots of opposition on our campus. While not dispositive, that is not working in favor of your ideas.

And I don't see one idea of yours about energy storage.... which is another area of global focus. That's fine... you don't need to have one nor agree that it is a good idea... but again you seem so focused on being against solar and wind that you don't even mention it, other than to knock someone's clear joke about hanging weights off the side of the stadium.

We agree that more investment and strategy is needed to advance football.
We seem to agree that there are barriers to making those investments and strategic decisions.
We seem to disagree on whether we should try and appeal to things that matter to 'them' in order to get them to loosen the purse and/or administrative strings. You seem to want to argue your way into their agreement... which to me is very Quixotic, but is still your right.

Solar paint does not involve solar panels. Dyson-like technology does not involve massive wings... neither does 'wave' technology. I am not 'up' enough to know what sort of technology they might be researching.....

But doesn't it seem self-evident that any research in to advances in solar or wind technology, especially those driven by environmental concerns (which is the primary driver of this funding and focus).... would BY DEFINITION seek to address the very shortcomings you mention?? Again, I'm not saying they have to engage in simply making 'cleaner' existing tech... maybe like the paint they will be doing something completely different. Something you and I can't even currently imagine.

If we want to solve the 'lack of power at the stadium' issue then all we need to do is pay to dig a trench and run a power line or pay to install a grease collection center and a grease powered generator, or run a gas line and install a gas generator. That solves THAT problem......

But if we want to solve the problem that the University is always slow to embrace the sort of changes and investment that our peers seem to be able to enact much more quickly, then I THINK we need to demonstrate not only a willingness, but an EAGERNESS to put our mantra where our mouth is... Where Intellectual Brutality doesn't just refer to us having smart athletes, but where the intellects on our campus also embrace the brutality of 'sport'.

Note all of the expansions of 'sports management' or 'human performance' related majors and courses on campus. That's them adding academic courses with sports focus to their curriculum. I am suggesting we also show the opposite. Add asports focus to academic courses.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just a summary, Good...

I believe that your position on solar and wind is clouding this conversation. I threw those out as examples that made sense to me... NOT from a 'this is a good idea' point of view, because it doesn't matter what I think about it... but from the standpoint of what does the University and those who fund this sort of research think about it. Grease and nat gas make sense where grease and nat gas are... and we are certainly one of those places... but LOTS of places in the world (especially those with real power needs) don't have nearby concentrations of grease and nat gas... so the applications of any technology advancements are limited, and the general technology has been around for decades. My OPINION is that this tech is mostly played out from an institutional research standpoint.

OK. So we're not necessarily talking about solving the power problem to the HRS. I guess that's one thing I was confused about. We're talking about finding ways that are interesting to the University personnel who hold the pursestringas and/or who would do the research to use our athletics facilites to pilot or demonstrate new technology uses/applicatons that the University was researching/developing. Is that a fair summary of what you are talking about now?

I'm OK with that, and I'm okay with exploring other things besides present technological application of solar and wind. I don't know much about solar paint, for instance. Whatever the technology is that would be the recipient of the research and application my main concern, like with present solar and wind tech, is that the "green" labeling did not and does not somehow cloud the researchers into ignoring the unanticipated present or future environmental and or ecological costs just because the tech in question is "hot", "cool" or "in vogue" now among the hip kids in grant and "green" movement/money. The reason I feel that way is that in my opinion, Oil and Gas (which I have no real investment in myself, to be clear) have gotten an unfairly bad rap when compared to allegedly "clean green" energy sources that turn out to be as dirty and/or problematic in ways that are swept under the rug (or buried under the dirt) and hidden in the discussion and/or calculation of their effectiveness or usefulness whether to us or to mankind.

Now the separate question of whether those presently in academics/leadership could be led to care enough about athletics to support it and/or be willing to have the U spend money more freely on athletics. I still don't think they wouldn't care a whole hill of beans about athletics, not enough to give anything but token support to it. But I'm not against trying. When we do try, I want them to be fair-minded about it. In as far as look at ALL technologies possible, not just focusing on those that they themselves consider 'green.'

For instance, with Nuclear, which I believe the University DOES have a past history of experience in as far as Engineering, what about doing a pilot Space Elevator project using the carbon nanotube technology that I believe we at Rice invented/discovered and running small, inert canisters of spent Nuclear fuel up to space and then loading it on small-rocket propelled darts aimed at the Sun to dispose of the issue once and for all? Then we could also build on-campus a small Nuclear power plant for HRS/other U power needs that would demonstrate futuristic (and globally interesting) power/disposal methods that can be applied around the globe (and in space) to help provide power. How does that sound? I'd think there'd be a LOT of interest from power providers who'd like to use more Nuclear,but are concerned about what to do to dispose of the spent fuel. This way, you don't need to worry about Yucca Mountain anymore. Is there a (non-Communist China) grant and/or research dollars for that? I think industry would be falling all over themselves to accomplish THAT and to get rid of past spent fuel around the globe. Nuclear provides a lot more power than solar and wind, so storage may or may not be an additional need. (Again, I have no direct financial interest in Nuclear myself. Just a concern that we should be doing much more to develop the very promising Nuclear power technology and its related issues instead of wasting dollars on solar panels and wind turbines that don't and can' provide very much power in aggregate, pollute and destroy the environment way more than is talked about, and are financial sinks and dead-ends of solving energy needs in present and future, but solar and wind DO have a few well-placed mega-wealthy and global-control (read: anti-freedom) financial interests that are seeking to suck money away from people and governments by hijacking the "green-that-is-actually-not-so-green-as-they-are-saying" movements.

So, I'm not against your idea. I'd just pick different horses, or technology focuses. But I guess your argument back top be would be "but they are not interested in those." and That's where I'd push back and say it seems folly to fund them to pursue the ones they are interested in if they are being fundamentally dishonest about, for example, soaalr and wind power's hidden failures and problem that make them economically unsustainable. Basically anything we do I want to be economically sound. Greenies tend to ignore economic reality and I believe we still teach economics on campus, although I'm not sure which kind.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Note that I haven't yet mentioned the fact that there is lots of opposition globally to burning oil and gas, even grease... and lots of opposition on our campus. While not dispositive, that is not working in favor of your ideas.

And I'd point out that many of the "alternatives" they are seemingly not opposed to don't make economic sense and come with their own seldom-talked-about environmental, ecological and economic issues. But if you ignore those issues, they're currently hip so that's what the cool kids are doing. That argument never worked on me for drugs when on campus and it still doesn't work on me for "alternative" energy. I like doing what makes sense and is more prudent, and I'd like to mitigate harm. Oil and Gas may not be sexy, but they are as clean, proven and cost effective as many of the things being wrongly touted as green, and we have centuries of availability left. Meantime, let's develop and implement Nuclear, Plasma, et cetera. The energy they provide is exponentially greater than anything today's alternative like solar and wind provide or could ever provide, scientifically speaking. I'm not interested in lining Berkshire's or GE's or Soros' or Communist China's pockets and pretend to feel good about it. They $uck.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  And I don't see one idea of yours about energy storage.... which is another area of global focus. That's fine... you don't need to have one nor agree that it is a good idea... but again you seem so focused on being against solar and wind that you don't even mention it, other than to knock someone's clear joke about hanging weights off the side of the stadium.

I'm not as interested as you in battery storage as in power generation, whether large or nano-scale (which our U has a history at). Mini and nano-power I am interested in. Batteries are needed, to be sure, but I want to work on technology that is, how do we say this, independent and not centrally controlled, like a gas mower or car, and cannot be remotely shut off because some un-elected government regulator decided that someone's social or "carbon footprint' score was arbitrarily uncool. I'm basically opposed to transitioning everything, or even a significant amount of our power/energy to electric based technology. Some is fine, but freedom needs more independently available and more independently (and privately) controlled power. So I guess I'm not down for the all-electric dogma many seem to be falling for.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We agree that more investment and strategy is needed to advance football.

check.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  We seem to agree that there are barriers to making those investments and strategic decisions.

check.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  seem to disagree on whether we should try and appeal to things that matter to 'them' in order to get them to loosen the purse and/or administrative strings. You seem to want to argue your way into their agreement... which to me is very Quixotic, but is still your right.

mmm...kinda yes and kinda no. I think I'd like to meet them at a compromise, not just capitulate to what presently matters to 'them' because I view some of what matters to 'them' as logically unsound, economically dishonest, and agenda-driven by agendas which I don;t find are in our country's or our citizens' national interest, but those agendas do seem to align with enemies of our country and our citizens, so yeah, I'd like to compromise and find things we both can agree on instead of the continuous drone of unfounded globalist mandates few in academic seem willing to push back on. I'd also divest from and defund anything from enemy states or global organizations that shill for enemy states as a cover, using their money to turn our institutions into global whores.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Solar paint does not involve solar panels. Dyson-like technology does not involve massive wings... neither does 'wave' technology. I am not 'up' enough to know what sort of technology they might be researching.....

Do the paint, or anything else, just don't be dishonest if it turns out to be way dirtier than advertised just because it may fit the "cool green" narrative. The "cool green" narrative seems to be a fundamental lie. And the people seemingly behind it appear tom be self-serving enemies of our people's national interest.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But doesn't it seem self-evident that any research in to advances in solar or wind technology, especially those driven by environmental concerns (which is the primary driver of this funding and focus).... would BY DEFINITION seek to address the very shortcomings you mention?? Again, I'm not saying they have to engage in simply making 'cleaner' existing tech... maybe like the paint they will be doing something completely different. Something you and I can't even currently imagine.

I think we've both beaten this one to death already. Just be honest about all effects of new alternatives, and don't collaborate with enemies of our nation are my main requirements.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If we want to solve the 'lack of power at the stadium' issue then all we need to do is pay to dig a trench and run a power line or pay to install a grease collection center and a grease powered generator, or run a gas line and install a gas generator. That solves THAT problem......

Agreed, as Ourland also posted. I understand you're really more trying tom discuss new ways to get 'buy-in' from folks who don't care but we need to try to find ways to get them to care. I think we're good on that now.

(02-15-2023 10:19 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  But if we want to solve the problem that the University is always slow to embrace the sort of changes and investment that our peers seem to be able to enact much more quickly, then I THINK we need to demonstrate not only a willingness, but an EAGERNESS to put our mantra where our mouth is... Where Intellectual Brutality doesn't just refer to us having smart athletes, but where the intellects on our campus also embrace the brutality of 'sport'.

Note all of the expansions of 'sports management' or 'human performance' related majors and courses on campus. That's them adding academic courses with sports focus to their curriculum. I am suggesting we also show the opposite. Add asports focus to academic courses.

Okay, I think we're more aligned on the subject matter now. I will support your perspective on this, subject to my stated desire for scientific honesty in not biasing and ignoring the severe environmental, ecological and economic problems with 'green' alternatives just because they don't fit the "green is good" narrative, remaining willing to use oil and gas, and further refine our abilities in those realms, being open to explore a LOT more stuff in Nuclear realm along the lines you suggest, looking at Plasma, Space elevators for waste disposal, Grease, and staying the heck away from any globalist and communist funding sources and organizations. That work for you?

Back to the Stadium: Let's go Owls! (away from the wind-blades!)

It would actually be fitting that Rice build the first Space Elevator...from Rice Stadium, site of Kennedy's famous "to the Moon" speech, up to...well, the Moon...or down from the Moon, made out of Carbon nanotubes, engineered (and discovered) at Rice, as in this example:

(02-15-2023 06:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Okay, I think we're more aligned on the subject matter now. I will support your perspective on this, subject to my stated desire for scientific honesty in not biasing and ignoring the severe environmental, ecological and economic problems with 'green' alternatives just because they don't fit the "green is good" narrative, remaining willing to use oil and gas, and further refine our abilities in those realms, being open to explore a LOT more stuff in Nuclear realm along the lines you suggest, looking at Plasma, Space elevators for waste disposal, Grease, and staying the heck away from any globalist and communist funding sources and organizations. That work for you?

Back to the Stadium: Let's go Owls! (away from the wind-blades!)

I don't think we're terribly misaligned... I would merely note that your 'subject to' is an issue for the University, which IMO Athletics should play no part in. If you want to advocate that to the University, I support you 100%.... but in the end, I want them to see Athletics as part of the University, and not a source of friction for it. If they decide they want to work on grease, that's fine... or solar or wind or capturing energy released by chemical process or anything else.

And yes... maybe research into various structures and then ultimately building a nano tower to house a new, heavy duty elevator that actually REACHES the press boxes is 'how we do it'.

(02-16-2023 01:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-15-2023 06:07 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Okay, I think we're more aligned on the subject matter now. I will support your perspective on this, subject to my stated desire for scientific honesty in not biasing and ignoring the severe environmental, ecological and economic problems with 'green' alternatives just because they don't fit the "green is good" narrative, remaining willing to use oil and gas, and further refine our abilities in those realms, being open to explore a LOT more stuff in Nuclear realm along the lines you suggest, looking at Plasma, Space elevators for waste disposal, Grease, and staying the heck away from any globalist and communist funding sources and organizations. That work for you?

Back to the Stadium: Let's go Owls! (away from the wind-blades!)

I don't think we're terribly misaligned... I would merely note that your 'subject to' is an issue for the University, which IMO Athletics should play no part in. If you want to advocate that to the University, I support you 100%.... but in the end, I want them to see Athletics as part of the University, and not a source of friction for it. If they decide they want to work on grease, that's fine... or solar or wind or capturing energy released by chemical process or anything else.

And yes... maybe research into various structures and then ultimately building a nano tower to house a new, heavy duty elevator that actually REACHES the press boxes is 'how we do it'.

Understood. I've enjoyed and appreciatedn the discussion with you here. Thanks, Ham! Go Owls! (to the Moon, on the Rice Space Elevator from HRS!)

HRS progress report...

Out with the old...



The last first-level pee wall is gone...



Pulling the ancient cast iron drains out of the NE ladies room

Phase 2!

(02-17-2023 04:49 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Phase 2!

Looks more like finishing Phase 1 ...

or doing what should have been done decades ago. (Phase 0?)

In any event, glad it's finally getting done!

And thanks to Grungy, as always, for keeping us informed. It's not like anyone who works for the University should be bothered with such trivial matters.

(02-17-2023 01:53 AM)Grungy Wrote:  HRS progress report...

The last first-level pee wall is gone...

I'm guessing from this description that upper-level pee walls remain for "Historical" purposes? (it is HRS, after all)...we can always charge extra for tours of what it used to be like...just no demonstrations, please...

(02-17-2023 05:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 01:53 AM)Grungy Wrote:  HRS progress report...

The last first-level pee wall is gone...

I'm guessing from this description that upper-level pee walls remain for "Historical" purposes? (it is HRS, after all)...we can always charge extra for tours of what it used to be like...just no demonstrations, please...

Even if only for the undeniably culturally historic pee walls, we should seek UNESCO World Heritage List status for HRS.

(FTR, the process requires that our country apply for it: https://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/ )

I am wondering if the difference between phase I and phase II is lunch.

Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

(02-18-2023 12:32 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

I believe current Rice fundraising policies prohibit it.

(02-17-2023 06:57 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 05:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-17-2023 01:53 AM)Grungy Wrote:  HRS progress report...

The last first-level pee wall is gone...

I'm guessing from this description that upper-level pee walls remain for "Historical" purposes? (it is HRS, after all)...we can always charge extra for tours of what it used to be like...just no demonstrations, please...

Even if only for the undeniably culturally historic pee walls, we should seek UNESCO World Heritage List status for HRS.

(FTR, the process requires that our country apply for it: https://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/ )

The continued existence of the second level pee walls will hopefully allow me to find a group of volunteers/subjects for a long-desired photo project - five or so sheepish grins, rolled eyes, and other embarrassed looks, over the top of the wall.

(02-18-2023 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:32 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

I believe current Rice fundraising policies prohibit it.

I asked about 6 months ago if there were any atypical policies restricting Rice athletic fundraising and was told there were not.

(02-21-2023 01:45 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:32 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

I believe current Rice fundraising policies prohibit it.

I asked about 6 months ago if there were any atypical policies restricting Rice athletic fundraising and was told there were not.

Did you define "atypical"? The Rice Way is the Right Way.

I don't think there is anything atypical about how we might raise money... but I have repeatedly heard that there may be something atypical about naming buildings or how much signage is allowed. Someone mentioned Matress Mack... and while I doubt he would venture far away from the larger numbers and preferable demographics of his UH affiliations, while we might embrace McInvale Field and potentially even the nickname of 'the mattress', I doubt if we would accept Matress Mack Field.... or a big sign on the outside announcing Gallery Furniture Field ... which potentially reduces somewhat the economic value to the donor.

(02-21-2023 02:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't think there is anything atypical about how we might raise money... but I have repeatedly heard that there may be something atypical about naming buildings or how much signage is allowed. Someone mentioned Matress Mack... and while I doubt he would venture far away from the larger numbers and preferable demographics of his UH affiliations, while we might embrace McInvale Field and potentially even the nickname of 'the mattress', I doubt if we would accept Matress Mack Field.... or a big sign on the outside announcing Gallery Furniture Field ... which potentially reduces somewhat the economic value to the donor.

yeah, but don't "Saves you money" ring a nice bell on S. Main?...

(02-21-2023 01:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-21-2023 01:45 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-18-2023 12:32 AM)Texasowl Wrote:  Why cant we get a corporate sponsor for HRS for naming rights for additional funds for renovation in .

I believe current Rice fundraising policies prohibit it.

I asked about 6 months ago if there were any atypical policies restricting Rice athletic fundraising and was told there were not.

Did you define "atypical"? The Rice Way is the Right Way.

Most universities would typically have a stated or implied morality component (e.g. no naming rights sold to Marlboro).

Within reason, at Rice there are NO restrictions on naming rights. There are also none of the restrictions that frequently get posited here such “as any major gift to athletics must be matched by a gift to academics.” Rumors of these restrictions are not only apocryphal but flat out not true.

We just need to create the product that encourages the sponsoring.