http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Houston U?

"The Big 12’s academic standing is worse than I thought. And that’s no small matter." - B. Tramel

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The MWC being a preferable destination with more upside is a defensible argument.

Think about it: UH is being mentioned as a possible academic improvement for the Big XII. That says it all.

(01-18-2016 02:38 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  "The Big 12’s academic standing is worse than I thought. And that’s no small matter." - B. Tramel

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The MWC being a preferable destination with more upside is a defensible argument.

Think about it: UH is being mentioned as a possible academic improvement for the Big XII. That says it all.

You would rather go to the MWC than the Big 12? It's not even close...

Former A&M President Loftin in his book about conference alignment does mention that AAU status were important to the Big 10 and Pac (now 12). All of the schools that left the Big 12 had AAU status-Colorado to the Pac 12, Nebraska (but lost it later) to Big 10, A&M and Missouri to SEC.

The Big 12 is a P5 conference and the MWC is not, but the Big 12 has issues with stability-Longhorn Network, uneven distribution of money and schools previously interested in other conferences.

UH does have Carnegie status which is more than most of the Big 12 have. UH is better than it was a generation or two ago.

(01-18-2016 02:38 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  "The Big 12’s academic standing is worse than I thought. And that’s no small matter." - B. Tramel

Exactly what I've been saying all along. The MWC being a preferable destination with more upside is a defensible argument.

Think about it: UH is being mentioned as a possible academic improvement for the Big XII. That says it all.

(01-18-2016 02:08 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Two things I take from that article: 1) in an article specifically about academics in FBS football, we were not even mentioned in passing, and 2) because academics DO matter to college presidents, at least on the margins, when thinking about who they want to associate with in their athletic conference- if we were taking care of business, investing in the program, etc., on the order of UH right now we would almost certainly be in a P5 (soon)

But as long as we are considered a school that 'dabbles in football' we never will. And who can argue?

(01-19-2016 10:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:08 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Two things I take from that article: 1) in an article specifically about academics in FBS football, we were not even mentioned in passing, and 2) because academics DO matter to college presidents, at least on the margins, when thinking about who they want to associate with in their athletic conference- if we were taking care of business, investing in the program, etc., on the order of UH right now we would almost certainly be in a P5 (soon)

But as long as we are considered a school that 'dabbles in football' we never will. And who can argue?

correct; and as long as we 'dabble', then no matter who the coach is he is doomed to fail.

(01-19-2016 10:50 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:08 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Two things I take from that article: 1) in an article specifically about academics in FBS football, we were not even mentioned in passing, and 2) because academics DO matter to college presidents, at least on the margins, when thinking about who they want to associate with in their athletic conference- if we were taking care of business, investing in the program, etc., on the order of UH right now we would almost certainly be in a P5 (soon)

But as long as we are considered a school that 'dabbles in football' we never will. And who can argue?

correct; and as long as we 'dabble', then no matter who the coach is he is doomed to fail.

We dabbled in lots of sports. Some coaches managed to succeed and helped turn the dabbling into commitment. Wayne Graham (heck even Todd Graham) had diddly squat to start with.

Or we can just continue to make excuses.

(01-19-2016 10:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:50 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:08 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Two things I take from that article: 1) in an article specifically about academics in FBS football, we were not even mentioned in passing, and 2) because academics DO matter to college presidents, at least on the margins, when thinking about who they want to associate with in their athletic conference- if we were taking care of business, investing in the program, etc., on the order of UH right now we would almost certainly be in a P5 (soon)

But as long as we are considered a school that 'dabbles in football' we never will. And who can argue?

correct; and as long as we 'dabble', then no matter who the coach is he is doomed to fail.

We dabbled in lots of sports. Some coaches managed to succeed and helped turn the dabbling into commitment. Wayne Graham (heck even Todd Graham) had diddly squat to start with.

Or we can just continue to make excuses.

So the only way for us to succeed is to find a Hall of Fame coach in each sport to inspire the university to support the program?

Or are there multiple approaches that might work, one being providing the support up front so that whatever coach, in whatever sport, does not need to fight against the institution while trying to compete at a high level?

I find this excuse line to be a trope at this point that oversimplifies a complex problem that does not have a single, silver bullet solution. It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

(01-19-2016 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

... because Unconventional Wisdom.

(01-19-2016 11:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

... because Unconventional Wisdom.

To me, we have done such a disservice to the student athletes who work their butts off to represent Rice for the past few decades. It is fantastic that we appear to finally be coming to the realization of how poorly they have been supported with all of the much needed, new facilities. I think track has been the neglected the worst, so it's fantastic that they finally are getting a LOCKER ROOM.

It was a nice little article..paying lip service to the academics in P5 football. But, I absolutely don't think that it matters that much. If school X has a consistently winning record, a national sports reputation, a better than decent turn out for the games...that team will get the invite to move up. AAU, Carnegie will be nice..but not a major factor. It's the ESPN rankings, not AAU and Carnegie that will drive re-alignment.

(01-19-2016 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

... because Unconventional Wisdom.

To me, we have done such a disservice to the student athletes who work their butts off to represent Rice for the past few decades. It is fantastic that we appear to finally be coming to the realization of how poorly they have been supported with all of the much needed, new facilities. I think track has been the neglected the worst, so it's fantastic that they finally are getting a LOCKER ROOM.

I agree that track and field/cross-country have been horrendously neglected. While I give credit to the administration for footing the entire bill for the new grandstands and building at the track, that is not the complete story.

1. The administration needed to get rid of the old stands in order to eliminate potential liability stemming from the unsafe condition. Removing the old stands created a need for a replacement;

2. The administration continues to refuse to make any long term commitment to the track/soccer facility because it says that the future of that corner of the campus is up in the air. As a result, the new "facility" at the stadium HAS NO LOCKER ROOMS OR SHOWERS. There are some restrooms, a couple of meeting rooms, and a weight room. That's it. Frankly, I still think it's a Title IX violation, considering that a majority of female athletes on campus are members of the soccer and track & field teams.

(01-19-2016 11:56 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:27 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

... because Unconventional Wisdom.

To me, we have done such a disservice to the student athletes who work their butts off to represent Rice for the past few decades. It is fantastic that we appear to finally be coming to the realization of how poorly they have been supported with all of the much needed, new facilities. I think track has been the neglected the worst, so it's fantastic that they finally are getting a LOCKER ROOM.

I agree that track and field/cross-country have been horrendously neglected. While I give credit to the administration for footing the entire bill for the new grandstands and building at the track, that is not the complete story.

1. The administration needed to get rid of the old stands in order to eliminate potential liability stemming from the unsafe condition. Removing the old stands created a need for a replacement;

2. The administration continues to refuse to make any long term commitment to the track/soccer facility because it says that the future of that corner of the campus is up in the air. As a result, the new "facility" at the stadium HAS NO LOCKER ROOMS OR SHOWERS. There are some restrooms, a couple of meeting rooms, and a weight room. That's it. Frankly, I still think it's a Title IX violation, considering that a majority of female athletes on campus are members of the soccer and track & field teams.

Holy hell. I had just assumed locker rooms were included in the meeting rooms/restroom/weight room.

(01-19-2016 11:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:52 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:50 AM)davidw Wrote:  

(01-19-2016 10:42 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  

(01-18-2016 02:08 PM)RiceFootball2K5 Wrote:  http://newsok.com/academics-matters-in-c...um=twitter

Two things I take from that article: 1) in an article specifically about academics in FBS football, we were not even mentioned in passing, and 2) because academics DO matter to college presidents, at least on the margins, when thinking about who they want to associate with in their athletic conference- if we were taking care of business, investing in the program, etc., on the order of UH right now we would almost certainly be in a P5 (soon)

But as long as we are considered a school that 'dabbles in football' we never will. And who can argue?

correct; and as long as we 'dabble', then no matter who the coach is he is doomed to fail.

We dabbled in lots of sports. Some coaches managed to succeed and helped turn the dabbling into commitment. Wayne Graham (heck even Todd Graham) had diddly squat to start with.

Or we can just continue to make excuses.

So the only way for us to succeed is to find a Hall of Fame coach in each sport to inspire the university to support the program?

Or are there multiple approaches that might work, one being providing the support up front so that whatever coach, in whatever sport, does not need to fight against the institution while trying to compete at a high level?

I find this excuse line to be a trope at this point that oversimplifies a complex problem that does not have a single, silver bullet solution. It's like you're telling someone to drive a screw into a board, and when they say that you never gave them a screwdriver, you get annoyed that they're giving you an excuse as to why they can't do it. Sure, they can find some other tool that will get the job done half-assed, but why not just give them a damn screwdriver?

Exactly - all this talk of replacing coaches, wherever and in whatever sport, just strikes me as an example of the availability heuristic. As noted by a number of posters, Rice's issues go well beyond individual coaches, and in any event attracting and keeping quality coaches isn't going to happen if said coaches believe that the university, through its actions and inactions, is setting them up to fail.