(01-23-2020 06:23 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:17 PM)ruowls Wrote:  In my opinion, the plan should be to win now, win often, and win repeatedly. The talent disparity between lower to mid P5 teams and Rice is not an insurmountable hurdle. The top 5% of G5 is talented enough to be able to compete with the top quartile of P5.

Again, in my opinion, the decision makers for Rice have struggled to come up with a Performance Improvement Plan individualized for Rice. Unfortunately, it is hard to standardize a plan that isn't easily standardized. This poses a conundrum. It is ironic that Rice University used the tagline, Unconventional Wisdom, yet the approach to athletics is simply employing conventional wisdom.

College football is in perpetual flux. Boise State is looking to sue the MWC for not giving them a bigger piece of the MWC pie. Boise's stance is that their re-entrance agreement included extra benefits to Boise. Several members of the MWC voted to not give Boise the extra benefits that they were promised. MWC informed Boise that they wouldn't be getting extra benefits so Boise is threatening litigation. So, the MWC has a rift brewing. And this dynamic can play out in any conference that has a dominant team generating greater revenue for a league. So, is dominating CUSA a means to generate more revenue? Maybe or maybe not. Despite Boise being a perennial top 25 team, are they positioned to become a P5 member? Or more to the point, how are higher performing teams going to be rewarded in the future? As the disparity in success between conferences and teams within conferences grows, are the more successful teams willing to give up some revenue that they think they generated. In other words, inequitable revenue distribution based on performance amongst affiliated members is going to be addressed down the road. It is the SWC issue resurfacing. It is more noticeable in the G5 due to lower revenues to be shared but is starting to show at the P5 level. Payouts between P5 conferences is starting to widen due to differences in TV contracts and content distribution (think Pac 12 issues).

So, this brings us back to what seems to be the biggest determination of worth.....WINNING. And for Rice, that means playing and BEATING, at times, the P5 and almost always the G5. This is what Boise, Navy, Memphis, Stanford, Vandy, WF, Duke, NW, TCU, and others that Rice aspires to be like are doing.

How does Rice win? Now we are back to the Rice Paradox. I think the Rice athletic leaders underestimated the ability of Rice fans to recognize the senselessness and folly of standardized decisions as a means to improve performance. Or, more importantly, relevance. It isn't necessarily revenue enhancement for the fans but relevance and meaningful success. The decision makers look at it as purely revenue enhancement within a budget.

In a nutshell, Rice needs to find leaders who can attain relevance (for the fan base) and generate revenue enhancement within a limited budget (for Rice). Of course, this is not going to be easy or easily standardized. It has to be a customized Rice Performance Improvement Plan that factors in as many internal and external variables and constraints as possible.

I haven't posted in a couple of years. That noted, this post by RuOwls is one of the most perceptive --wait, correction -- this is post by RuOwls is the most strategically perceptive post I have read in the last two years. RuOwls analyzes significant factors but focuses on the decisive issue. I like this term of derision: "standardized decisions." Small wants to defeat Big? Surprise them. Small must surprise Big. My Take 1: Bloomgren hires RuOwls as a game plan consultant. May Take 2: Bloomgren hires RuOwls as a GAMETIME consultant. But what do I know?

A lot of us would like to see RUowls involved in some way, from OC to AD.

(01-23-2020 04:17 PM)ruowls Wrote:  In my opinion, the plan should be to win now, win often, and win repeatedly. The talent disparity between lower to mid P5 teams and Rice is not an insurmountable hurdle. The top 5% of G5 is talented enough to be able to compete with the top quartile of P5.
Again, in my opinion, the decision makers for Rice have struggled to come up with a Performance Improvement Plan individualized for Rice. Unfortunately, it is hard to standardize a plan that isn't easily standardized. This poses a conundrum. It is ironic that Rice University used the tagline, Unconventional Wisdom, yet the approach to athletics is simply employing conventional wisdom.
College football is in perpetual flux. Boise State is looking to sue the MWC for not giving them a bigger piece of the MWC pie. Boise's stance is that their re-entrance agreement included extra benefits to Boise. Several members of the MWC voted to not give Boise the extra benefits that they were promised. MWC informed Boise that they wouldn't be getting extra benefits so Boise is threatening litigation. So, the MWC has a rift brewing. And this dynamic can play out in any conference that has a dominant team generating greater revenue for a league. So, is dominating CUSA a means to generate more revenue? Maybe or maybe not. Despite Boise being a perennial top 25 team, are they positioned to become a P5 member? Or more to the point, how are higher performing teams going to be rewarded in the future? As the disparity in success between conferences and teams within conferences grows, are the more successful teams willing to give up some revenue that they think they generated. In other words, inequitable revenue distribution based on performance amongst affiliated members is going to be addressed down the road. It is the SWC issue resurfacing. It is more noticeable in the G5 due to lower revenues to be shared but is starting to show at the P5 level. Payouts between P5 conferences is starting to widen due to differences in TV contracts and content distribution (think Pac 12 issues).
So, this brings us back to what seems to be the biggest determination of worth.....WINNING. And for Rice, that means playing and BEATING, at times, the P5 and almost always the G5. This is what Boise, Navy, Memphis, Stanford, Vandy, WF, Duke, NW, TCU, and others that Rice aspires to be like are doing.
How does Rice win? Now we are back to the Rice Paradox. I think the Rice athletic leaders underestimated the ability of Rice fans to recognize the senselessness and folly of standardized decisions as a means to improve performance. Or, more importantly, relevance. It isn't necessarily revenue enhancement for the fans but relevance and meaningful success. The decision makers look at it as purely revenue enhancement within a budget.
In a nutshell, Rice needs to find leaders who can attain relevance (for the fan base) and generate revenue enhancement within a limited budget (for Rice). Of course, this is not going to be easy or easily standardized. It has to be a customized Rice Performance Improvement Plan that factors in as many internal and external variables and constraints as possible.

You have asked the critical question. How does Rice win?

I'll give you a couple of thoughts. We're not going to win by lining up and doing the same thing everybody else does and simply out-atheling them. I remember a conversation with a very frustrated Ray Alborn who asked after a loss, "What do people want us to do? We line up and run the same plays as Texas." To which I replied, "Yes, coach, but you don't run them with the same people that Texas does."

Because of our size and academic restrictions--neither of which I would change--we simply are not going to out-athlete people consistently. I think we need one of those, "He can take his'uns and beat your'uns, or he can take your'uns and best his'uns," coaches.

What I think need to do includes the following:
1) Recruit, recruit, recruit, to narrow the talent gap as much as possible; focus on speed and grades.
2) Do something different from everybody else, to leverage the unique skills we can attract.
3) Execute, execute, execute; eliminate errors and use our brains to out-think and beat people.

I don't think that either a) there is another way, or b) we have had a coach who espoused this philosophy entirely, although we have had a few (generally, more successful) coaches who embodied parts of it.

As much as I want ruowls at Rice to see how he does, I have seen zero evidence that anyone in either the Rice administration or Rice athletics departments has the guts to make that kind of decision. They would rather slowly swirl around the drain by swimming upstream than swing across the current to get to safety.

(01-23-2020 09:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-23-2020 04:17 PM)ruowls Wrote:  In my opinion, the plan should be to win now, win often, and win repeatedly. The talent disparity between lower to mid P5 teams and Rice is not an insurmountable hurdle. The top 5% of G5 is talented enough to be able to compete with the top quartile of P5.
Again, in my opinion, the decision makers for Rice have struggled to come up with a Performance Improvement Plan individualized for Rice. Unfortunately, it is hard to standardize a plan that isn't easily standardized. This poses a conundrum. It is ironic that Rice University used the tagline, Unconventional Wisdom, yet the approach to athletics is simply employing conventional wisdom.
College football is in perpetual flux. Boise State is looking to sue the MWC for not giving them a bigger piece of the MWC pie. Boise's stance is that their re-entrance agreement included extra benefits to Boise. Several members of the MWC voted to not give Boise the extra benefits that they were promised. MWC informed Boise that they wouldn't be getting extra benefits so Boise is threatening litigation. So, the MWC has a rift brewing. And this dynamic can play out in any conference that has a dominant team generating greater revenue for a league. So, is dominating CUSA a means to generate more revenue? Maybe or maybe not. Despite Boise being a perennial top 25 team, are they positioned to become a P5 member? Or more to the point, how are higher performing teams going to be rewarded in the future? As the disparity in success between conferences and teams within conferences grows, are the more successful teams willing to give up some revenue that they think they generated. In other words, inequitable revenue distribution based on performance amongst affiliated members is going to be addressed down the road. It is the SWC issue resurfacing. It is more noticeable in the G5 due to lower revenues to be shared but is starting to show at the P5 level. Payouts between P5 conferences is starting to widen due to differences in TV contracts and content distribution (think Pac 12 issues).
So, this brings us back to what seems to be the biggest determination of worth.....WINNING. And for Rice, that means playing and BEATING, at times, the P5 and almost always the G5. This is what Boise, Navy, Memphis, Stanford, Vandy, WF, Duke, NW, TCU, and others that Rice aspires to be like are doing.
How does Rice win? Now we are back to the Rice Paradox. I think the Rice athletic leaders underestimated the ability of Rice fans to recognize the senselessness and folly of standardized decisions as a means to improve performance. Or, more importantly, relevance. It isn't necessarily revenue enhancement for the fans but relevance and meaningful success. The decision makers look at it as purely revenue enhancement within a budget.
In a nutshell, Rice needs to find leaders who can attain relevance (for the fan base) and generate revenue enhancement within a limited budget (for Rice). Of course, this is not going to be easy or easily standardized. It has to be a customized Rice Performance Improvement Plan that factors in as many internal and external variables and constraints as possible.

You have asked the critical question. How does Rice win?

I'll give you a couple of thoughts. We're not going to win by lining up and doing the same thing everybody else does and simply out-atheling them. I remember a conversation with a very frustrated Ray Alborn who asked after a loss, "What do people want us to do? We line up and run the same plays as Texas." To which I replied, "Yes, coach, but you don't run them with the same people that Texas does."

Because of our size and academic restrictions--neither of which I would change--we simply are not going to out-athlete people consistently. I think we need one of those, "He can take his'uns and beat your'uns, or he can take your'uns and best his'uns," coaches.

What I think need to do includes the following:
1) Recruit, recruit, recruit, to narrow the talent gap as much as possible; focus on speed and grades.
2) Do something different from everybody else, to leverage the unique skills we can attract.
3) Execute, execute, execute; eliminate errors and use our brains to out-think and beat people.

I don't think that either a) there is another way, or b) we have had a coach who espoused this philosophy entirely, although we have had a few (generally, more successful) coaches who embodied parts of it.

Hmm.....The anecdote above explains it. Alborn passed on a certain recruit back in the day. He must have been more focused on passing in recruiting and less on the field.

I think there are two parts to it

1) a coach with a unique approach
2) national and even global recruiting tied to academics... getting admissions involved in recruiting athletes... not merely 'accepting' them, but finding them all over the world...

The latter won't get us competitive with p5, but I do think it will help us dominate g5 which of course would elevate our profile and help us get those key recruits who, along with out unique approach can help us be competitive with p5.

To the latter, women's and Olympic sports are the obvious ones. The value of a Rice education over any other g5 and many p5's far outweighs the athletic differences for non-rev sports... While this isn't AS true for rev sports, you can still find an academically qualified '4 star' (by that I mean not the rankings themselves but some true 'value') player who would stand out in g5 stuck behind a '5 star' at say UT, but who doesn't want to sacrifice academics.

Of course there will be some issues with the NCAA and recruiting and scholarships etc etc etc... but we're smart. Figure it out

We are recruiting STUDENTS who happen to also be good at athletics. Other schools sometimes recruit athletes, whom they can manage to keep eligible.

(01-22-2020 11:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:17 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  IIRC, a big reason for MSU's 6-6 record was that they played the first half of the season without an injured Prescott.

Kind of. He started the season as the backup but the starter (Russell) was injured in the 1st game of the season and Prescott took over. He and Russell split time a little later in the season. Then Prescott missed 2 games (Alabama and Arkansas) and returned in the 4th quarter against Ole Miss. So he essentially missed 3 games because of injury.

Appreciate the more precise info.

Sounds like they had a two headed QB for about half the season. How very Rice of them.

I took a bus to the game, and was the only Rice guy on board. They sure were talking up their QB on the way to the game. During the game, I was impressed enough with Prescott to be happy when Dallas drafted him.

Most miserable Rice game i ever attended, and I have been at games with torrential rain and lightning where the stands were emptied and tornado warnings issued. One of the few I have left early.

agree with the bold and sadly several more the next 2-3 years. And I saw games in the 70's and 80's

Hambone,

Agree 100% that we have to have a coach with a unique approach. Whether it’s Mike Leach’s Air Raid or Hat’s triple or RuOwls’s West Coast or whatever, the approach has to be contrarian. And I like an emphasis on defense and special teams, both of which would be quite contrarian in CUSA.

As far as recruiting, I think we need to go national, but that costs money, so we pick our spots. I think we want some staff members with connections to certain locations, so we focus on those. But we are in Texas, and Texas is such fertile ground for football (and baseball and basketball) players that we have to invest heavily there. And I also think one source we could pursue is the guy who wants to play football and, say, baseball and Texas wants him but says football only, where we say we will support you to play both. Jess did that a lot. King Hill played golf. And when I got to Rice about half the baseball team was football players, and they were pretty good until Bo Hagan stopped it. Neely also had a deal with Brunson where football players could run track in return for Brunson working with football players to develop speed. Jess also made a big deal out of speed and academics in recruiting. I still think Neely did some things that were keys to success at a small, academically elite university, and his successors have mostly ignored those lessons.

What I think we have to do is identify and utilize certain leverages we have in recruiting. We’re sitting on a mountain of talent in Texas. We can provide an education that is almost unmatched in the G5 and only rarely matched in the P5. We could become a destination school for multi-sport athletes. And we can have a system that maximizes certain unique skill sets that we can use (the HS QB that Texas says, “come here and we will make you a safety,” but we can use at QB). Put all that together and we can compete for talent that we are not getting now. And then scheme and prepare and execute better than anybody else.

I think it can be done, but I don’t think we are doing it now. If I were taking over as Rice football coach, I think I’d try to assemble a staff this way. Keep the recruiting coordinator and the best other recruiter from the previous staff for continuity, and to try to hang on to your recruits. In that regard, I would honor every recruit who committed to the previous staff as a matter of integrity—no Todd/Lashley deals. I would pick three coordinators—offense, defense, and special teams—that I knew and trusted implicitly, preferably with strong ties—NFL or prior coaching experience—to out-of-state areas that we wanted to recruit heavily (Florida, SoCal, maybe Atlanta or Chicago). Then I would go after HS coaches with recruiting contacts. Ideally, maybe the immediate past presidents of the Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma HS coaching associations. And I’d fill out the last staff position with a recruiter who could coach whatever position we did not have covered best. That’s kind of a combination of Saban at LSU, Fred at Rice, and Rhule at Baylor.

69/70

We've had this discussion so you know I don't disagree with you.

I'm really speaking more to a slightly different aspect of recruiting... even beyond football

I walked on at Rice... I only played in Texas my Sr yr so I was relatively unknown... and I was wait-listed in admissions. Ray was the speaker at my high school banquet and I asked him if he could help me get off the wait list. While I don't know exactly what happened and I know he helped, I believe he went around admissions as I spoke with some professors (one in particular) whom I believe worked on my behalf. Ray told me that his lobbying on my behalf would actually do more harm than good.

I'm not saying that's still the case... what I'm saying is that Rice recognizes that someone who works 20+ hours a week at a job IN ADDITION to their classes and still manages to qualify for Rice shows 'more' than someone who merely goes to school and qualifies... in simple terms, a 3.8 while volunteering 15 hours and being on varsity or band or whatever for another 15 is more qualified than a 3.8 without those extras and competitive in the eyes of Rice admissions with a 3.9 or even 4.0. Obviously I'm over-simplifying...

I'm saying that we get thousands of applications for those 3.8's with varsity. I'm saying that we could start recruiting more of those 3.8's with varsity. Take the 'whole person' attitude toward admissions where someone who is great in science, and also plays sports or an instrument is more qualified or at least more Rice than someone who doesn't. Get these people to walk on... Let academics present people to athletics and see if athletics wants them as opposed to the other way around alone.

Set up a committee that sits between the ADs office and the campus, whose focus is on intramurals and walk-ons... on 'the whole person' integration. Make Rice the 'nerdy jock' destination that it used to be.

I think this would actually help sports OTHER than the big 3 more than the big 3, but I don't think it would hurt at all the big 3 and I think it would help 'some'. Enough to dominate CUSA I believe, and you start from there.

I don't really have a problem recruiting heavily in Texas, but the reality is that our flagship universities are pretty good schools... and lots of people, especially a kid who was perhaps all-district 3a and top 10% are choosing to walk-on at UT... some become great practice players... some become huge helps on special teams... some become starters and even stars. They ALL become alumni who have an affinity for athletics

(01-26-2020 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  69/70
We've had this discussion so you know I don't disagree with you.
I'm really speaking more to a slightly different aspect of recruiting... even beyond football
I walked on at Rice... I only played in Texas my Sr yr so I was relatively unknown... and I was wait-listed in admissions. Ray was the speaker at my high school banquet and I asked him if he could help me get off the wait list. While I don't know exactly what happened and I know he helped, I believe he went around admissions as I spoke with some professors (one in particular) whom I believe worked on my behalf. Ray told me that his lobbying on my behalf would actually do more harm than good.
I'm not saying that's still the case... what I'm saying is that Rice recognizes that someone who works 20+ hours a week at a job IN ADDITION to their classes and still manages to qualify for Rice shows 'more' than someone who merely goes to school and qualifies... in simple terms, a 3.8 while volunteering 15 hours and being on varsity or band or whatever for another 15 is more qualified than a 3.8 without those extras and competitive in the eyes of Rice admissions with a 3.9 or even 4.0. Obviously I'm over-simplifying...
I'm saying that we get thousands of applications for those 3.8's with varsity. I'm saying that we could start recruiting more of those 3.8's with varsity. Take the 'whole person' attitude toward admissions where someone who is great in science, and also plays sports or an instrument is more qualified or at least more Rice than someone who doesn't. Get these people to walk on... Let academics present people to athletics and see if athletics wants them as opposed to the other way around alone.
Set up a committee that sits between the ADs office and the campus, whose focus is on intramurals and walk-ons... on 'the whole person' integration. Make Rice the 'nerdy jock' destination that it used to be.
I think this would actually help sports OTHER than the big 3 more than the big 3, but I don't think it would hurt at all the big 3 and I think it would help 'some'. Enough to dominate CUSA I believe, and you start from there.
I don't really have a problem recruiting heavily in Texas, but the reality is that our flagship universities are pretty good schools... and lots of people, especially a kid who was perhaps all-district 3a and top 10% are choosing to walk-on at UT... some become great practice players... some become huge helps on special teams... some become starters and even stars. They ALL become alumni who have an affinity for athletics

I think you are onto something that would have great benefits for both the athletic and the academic sides. The problem is that the relationship between the two has been far too adversarial for far too long. And while there has certainly been plenty of animosity from the academic side directed toward athletics, from my perspective a lot of the fault has come from the siege/bunker mentality of athletics.

Some have asked why Stanford, Duke, et al have been more successful in athletics at prestigious academic institutions. I think a big factor has been a much more cooperative relationship between academics and athletics. Not perfect, they have their squabbles, but at the end of the day the two sides both realize that it is best for the university as a whole if they are on the same page. Rice has never had that in the years that I have been involved with the university.

At the end of the day, I think about 95% of our problems in athletics could be resolved fairly quickly and easily if the academic and athletic sides would just try to get along.

(01-26-2020 11:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-26-2020 10:45 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  69/70
We've had this discussion so you know I don't disagree with you.
I'm really speaking more to a slightly different aspect of recruiting... even beyond football
I walked on at Rice... I only played in Texas my Sr yr so I was relatively unknown... and I was wait-listed in admissions. Ray was the speaker at my high school banquet and I asked him if he could help me get off the wait list. While I don't know exactly what happened and I know he helped, I believe he went around admissions as I spoke with some professors (one in particular) whom I believe worked on my behalf. Ray told me that his lobbying on my behalf would actually do more harm than good.
I'm not saying that's still the case... what I'm saying is that Rice recognizes that someone who works 20+ hours a week at a job IN ADDITION to their classes and still manages to qualify for Rice shows 'more' than someone who merely goes to school and qualifies... in simple terms, a 3.8 while volunteering 15 hours and being on varsity or band or whatever for another 15 is more qualified than a 3.8 without those extras and competitive in the eyes of Rice admissions with a 3.9 or even 4.0. Obviously I'm over-simplifying...
I'm saying that we get thousands of applications for those 3.8's with varsity. I'm saying that we could start recruiting more of those 3.8's with varsity. Take the 'whole person' attitude toward admissions where someone who is great in science, and also plays sports or an instrument is more qualified or at least more Rice than someone who doesn't. Get these people to walk on... Let academics present people to athletics and see if athletics wants them as opposed to the other way around alone.
Set up a committee that sits between the ADs office and the campus, whose focus is on intramurals and walk-ons... on 'the whole person' integration. Make Rice the 'nerdy jock' destination that it used to be.
I think this would actually help sports OTHER than the big 3 more than the big 3, but I don't think it would hurt at all the big 3 and I think it would help 'some'. Enough to dominate CUSA I believe, and you start from there.
I don't really have a problem recruiting heavily in Texas, but the reality is that our flagship universities are pretty good schools... and lots of people, especially a kid who was perhaps all-district 3a and top 10% are choosing to walk-on at UT... some become great practice players... some become huge helps on special teams... some become starters and even stars. They ALL become alumni who have an affinity for athletics

I think you are onto something that would have great benefits for both the athletic and the academic sides. The problem is that the relationship between the two has been far too adversarial for far too long. And while there has certainly been plenty of animosity from the academic side directed toward athletics, from my perspective a lot of the fault has come from the siege/bunker mentality of athletics.

Some have asked why Stanford, Duke, et al have been more successful in athletics at prestigious academic institutions. I think a big factor has been a much more cooperative relationship between academics and athletics. Not perfect, they have their squabbles, but at the end of the day the two sides both realize that it is best for the university as a whole if they are on the same page. Rice has never had that in the years that I have been involved with the university.

At the end of the day, I think about 95% of our problems in athletics could be resolved fairly quickly and easily if the academic and athletic sides would just try to get along.

I think Hambone's ideas are critical. I agree that increased collaboration between academics and athletics is a key cog.

Recruiting has to be aligned with skills that can be leveraged into success. If you fall into the trap of trying to recruit just like everyone else, Rice will more likely fail.

Just look at Hambone and me as the way to do it. As Hambone said above, he was a student who walked-on to the football team. He wasn't recruited but obviously in hindsight had superior skills. He still holds the record for longest FG in Rice history. He was accepted as a student but had skills to help the football team that traditional recruiting failed to identify. It is important to find a coach that can identify that which is not easily seen by traditional means.

I wrote to Rice before my senior year in HS. I got 1 letter back and my name wasn't even correct. If you focus on only the traditional metrics, it is possible to miss out on skills that can be useful. Under your system of recruiting, I wouldn't, and didn't, get a sniff from Rice. I went to Fresno State and well, I left after 1 semester. Went to a JC and finished third in the nation in receiving. Still didn't get a sniff from Rice. In fact, pretty much went unrecruited. I was being followed by Stanford but they fired their coach and hided a couch who had the same type of recruiting ideas as you. I ended up at Rice when a good number of their receivers got hurt in spring ball and they needed bodies. Fortunately for me, the last coach hired to Brown's staff was an OL (tackles) coach who came from Tulane. Tulane was looking at film on my JC's QB and remembered he saw a receiver that had some talent even though my measurables were suspect. Rice being desperate for receivers gave me a call 2 months after LOI signing day. Luckily for me, I was still available to come.

My point is that you have 2 cases of some pretty good players for Rice who fell into Rice's lap. I pretty much agree with Hambone in that you recruit students who have skills that can be utilized to make Rice athletics better. And sometimes, these skills aren't easily seen by all the "experts". Interestingly, I went to a camp the summer before my senior HS season. I was actually mostly a FS in HS and missed out being defensive player of the year for my HS league by 1 point. Anyway, this coach said you are a receiver and don't let people tell you otherwise. He called Minnesota (his alma mater) and Stanford on my behalf. Of course, neither call amounted to anything. This coach at the time was an NFL assistant who went on to become an NFL HC. He was able to recognize skills that others couldn't. That is the kind of talent Rice needs in a coach.

(01-27-2020 02:49 PM)ruowls Wrote:  Recruiting has to be aligned with skills that can be leveraged into success. If you fall into the trap of trying to recruit just like everyone else, Rice will more likely fail.

James Casey is another good example of a non-traditional recruit who succeeded at Rice.

Rice needs to win more battles for traditional recruits, but Rice will never (barring membership in a P5 conference) win enough of those battles to have a team full of the athletic talent to consistently compete at the level us fans want and believe Rice can compete at. So the path to achieving that level of success (I would say a consistently top-50 program with some season in the top-25) is going to be capitalizing on non-traditional recruits and capitalizing on a non-traditional system. Either that or start paying our players more than everyone else

(01-27-2020 02:49 PM)ruowls Wrote:  My point is that you have 2 cases of some pretty good players for Rice who fell into Rice's lap.

And Thor makes three.

(01-27-2020 02:49 PM)ruowls Wrote:  ... I was actually mostly a FS in HS and missed out being defensive player of the year for my HS league by 1 point. Anyway, this coach said you are a receiver and don't let people tell you otherwise. He called Minnesota (his alma mater) and Stanford on my behalf. Of course, neither call amounted to anything. This coach at the time was an NFL assistant who went on to become an NFL HC. ...

Tony Dungy? Or Marc Trestman?

(01-27-2020 03:51 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(01-27-2020 02:49 PM)ruowls Wrote:  ... I was actually mostly a FS in HS and missed out being defensive player of the year for my HS league by 1 point. Anyway, this coach said you are a receiver and don't let people tell you otherwise. He called Minnesota (his alma mater) and Stanford on my behalf. Of course, neither call amounted to anything. This coach at the time was an NFL assistant who went on to become an NFL HC. ...

Tony Dungy? Or Marc Trestman?

Dungy

It's way more than 3 of course... and when you include our other sports it's probably hundreds.

LOTS of athletes who came to Rice did so for academics, even if they were recruited.

And just because someone isn't a star or even a starter doesn't mean they aren't valuable. Maybe they were special teams stand-outs or even just helped out greatly on the scout teams.

There's a reason teams like UT have 100+ people on their teams, and it's not because they are looking for starters though they will sometimes find them.


It also changes the student make-up somewhat. I understand some go off on this 'China' rant, but the truth is that there are many people from nations that don't remotely understand football who are still or can easily become fans IF they have a general interest in competitive sports.