COming back to this

(05-05-2016 09:14 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I think if we knew the whole story we would all be nauseated.

Given that Houston Owl seems to know an awful lot about Rice Athletics in the past, somehow doubt this whole thing came down to a spat about an event.

(05-23-2016 07:56 PM)Antarius Wrote:  COming back to this

(05-05-2016 09:14 PM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I think if we knew the whole story we would all be nauseated.

Given that Houston Owl seems to know an awful lot about Rice Athletics in the past, somehow doubt this whole thing came down to a spat about an event.

Nauseated at what he did or how he acted? Or nauseated that he was fired for something pretty mild?

(05-23-2016 07:41 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 05:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:49 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

I agree with RiceOwl53 on this. Here you are dissecting every word and/or opinion from this thread. All of the implications he pointed out are true. Just let it go, and learn from it.

Well, RiceOwl53 and I are not exactly disagreeing -- or at least it's not clear that we are, because it's not entirely clear what he is saying. I asked a sincere question: could the situation be characterized in a particular way? That doesn't imply anything; it just asks a question. If anyone is "dissecting every word" (though inaccurately), it is RiceOwl53, who claimed that I implied things I didn't imply.

I agree that it would be better for RiceOwl53 and others to let it go and learn from it, and I'm not sure why they have chosen not to do so.

Well, I'm pretty clear on what he's saying. As usual, the administrative types got their panties in a wad about something. And as usual, the athletic representative involved is fired. Probably for doing his job and speaking the truth. Baylor can have their coaches knowingly recruit rapists and nothing happens to them, and one of our guys looks sideways at a higher up, causing some type of an affront, and he's gone.

it would just be nice if Athletics received some REAL support from these "politicians". Not just the politically correct golf clap.

And no, I'm not advocating recruiting rapists so please lets not start that thread. Honestly though, can we get something more along the lines of middle ground at Rice?

Thank you. You get it exactly. For a board that has graduates from a school that requires intense academic requirements, comprehension of simple arguments are not a strong point on here.

To the bolded part:

Most comments from people on here are sarcastic. So when you pose those questions, I took it as a sarcastic quip saying I could not have viewed it as the other way. IF it was a sincere inquiry, I apologize. But I've dealt with your kind before around here, and most of the time when called out, some significant crawfishing occurs.

The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. The eggheads don't know what they're doing over there. They just need to give the resources and turn athletics loose. A strong AD that is well-funded is what is needed for improvement. Of course this will never happen because that "isn't Rice". Well what "is Rice" ain't working too well. So how 'bout we use some "Unconventional Wisdom" and think outside of what we have been doing?

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  For a board that has graduates from a school that requires intense academic requirements, comprehension of simple arguments are not a strong point on here.

Perhaps not!

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Most comments from people on here are sarcastic. So when you pose those questions, I took it as a sarcastic quip saying I could not have viewed it as the other way. IF it was a sincere inquiry, I apologize.

It was a sincere inquiry. Apology accepted.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  But I've dealt with your kind before around here, and most of the time when called out, some significant crawfishing occurs.

I'm not sure what you think my "kind" is, but in any case, following an apology with an insult could be perceived as giving short shrift to the apology.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. ?

But what exactly did I (or anyone else on this thread) do that constitutes "it"? While I understand your enthusiasm, in this case you might be railing against a sin that none of us here have actually committed.

The topic of this thread was the dismissal of the S&C coach. You clearly think that the dismissal was outrageously unreasonable. I have no idea if it was or not, and no one on this thread has presented any facts to demonstrate one way or the other. You presented a strongly-worded characterization of the situation, and I asked if an opposite characterization was also colorable -- which is a fair question, because often a set of facts can be characterized in different ways. Unfortunately, none of our subsequent discussion has shed much light on the original topic.

(05-23-2016 10:41 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Nauseated at what he did or how he acted? Or nauseated that he was fired for something pretty mild?

That would seem to be the $64,000 question.

(05-25-2016 05:01 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:41 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Nauseated at what he did or how he acted? Or nauseated that he was fired for something pretty mild?

That would seem to be the $64,000 question.

The second.

(05-25-2016 04:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  For a board that has graduates from a school that requires intense academic requirements, comprehension of simple arguments are not a strong point on here.

Perhaps not!

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Most comments from people on here are sarcastic. So when you pose those questions, I took it as a sarcastic quip saying I could not have viewed it as the other way. IF it was a sincere inquiry, I apologize.

It was a sincere inquiry. Apology accepted.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  But I've dealt with your kind before around here, and most of the time when called out, some significant crawfishing occurs.

I'm not sure what you think my "kind" is, but in any case, following an apology with an insult could be perceived as giving short shrift to the apology.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. ?

But what exactly did I (or anyone else on this thread) do that constitutes "it"? While I understand your enthusiasm, in this case you might be railing against a sin that none of us here have actually committed.

The topic of this thread was the dismissal of the S&C coach. You clearly think that the dismissal was outrageously unreasonable. I have no idea if it was or not, and no one on this thread has presented any facts to demonstrate one way or the other. You presented a strongly-worded characterization of the situation, and I asked if an opposite characterization was also colorable -- which is a fair question, because often a set of facts can be characterized in different ways. Unfortunately, none of our subsequent discussion has shed much light on the original topic.

I don't think he was insulting you with the "your kind" comment. I think he means the "Rice kind" that tends to overthink every little point of an argument or discussion. It is prevalent amongst Rice alumni, because frankly Rice alumni are smarter than your average person. Certainly smarter than the idiots who frequent the Aggie and Longhorn boards, for example. So don't be offended.

I theorize this about the Yox situation (and I do not KNOW, I'm simply speculating). Coach Yox said or did something or wanted to do something that was possibly politically incorrect. The right thing to do by all accounts, but could be misconstrued. So naturally the admin types, not wanting to offend anyone and possibly because Yox didn't back down about it, turned the tables.

So, now we are without a strength and conditioning coach right when we need one the most....for summer workouts. WELL DONE, HIGHER UPS!

I know most on this board are fired up about JK, but I for one am not.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. The eggheads don't know what they're doing over there. They just need to give the resources and turn athletics loose. A strong AD that is well-funded is what is needed for improvement. Of course this will never happen because that "isn't Rice". Well what "is Rice" ain't working too well. So how 'bout we use some "Unconventional Wisdom" and think outside of what we have been doing?

I don't really disagree, but I've hit my head against this wall for far longer than you have.

Athletics exists because of the University, not the other way around... and that isn't going to change. That doesn't mean that we cant change the dynamics... It merely means that we can't demand things... we instead have to OFFER things... and those things have to matter to Rice. Unlike lots of state schools that need athletics for donors, we don't really. We LIKE them, but we don't NEED them.

SO what we need to do is package things in a way that demonstrates the value to the University, and not the value to athletics... Yes, that sometimes means the University gets more out of it than athletics does, but at least athletics moves forward.

That's why I always focus on improving/broadening recruiting as a process to get better STUDENTS... because THAT is what matters 'over there'... and if we're honest, it can easily suit our purposes as well.... especially if (simple example) we get $1mm in additional recruiting budget with 3/4 of that going to NEW processes... the old processes still get 25% more.

I don't know that this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me... but as an example... football coaches are generally measured by wins and losses... and ADs are similarly... Only at Rice MIGHT a 10% increase in the APR get a coach a raise... but that is precisely the sort of thing that Rice values and our coaches and AD obviously TRY to accomplish that, but within a framework that has them serving two masters.

I'd like the administration to take more ownership of the 'education' components... not to divorce athletics from the process, but to give athletics better choices within those confines. Discovering qualified students and making sure they graduate and have time to access classes should be a function of the University, with athletics more often choosing from with a framework as opposed to bringing 'students' to the university for them to THEN say grace over (by and large... always exceptions)

(05-25-2016 05:20 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 04:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  For a board that has graduates from a school that requires intense academic requirements, comprehension of simple arguments are not a strong point on here.

Perhaps not!

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Most comments from people on here are sarcastic. So when you pose those questions, I took it as a sarcastic quip saying I could not have viewed it as the other way. IF it was a sincere inquiry, I apologize.

It was a sincere inquiry. Apology accepted.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  But I've dealt with your kind before around here, and most of the time when called out, some significant crawfishing occurs.

I'm not sure what you think my "kind" is, but in any case, following an apology with an insult could be perceived as giving short shrift to the apology.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. ?

But what exactly did I (or anyone else on this thread) do that constitutes "it"? While I understand your enthusiasm, in this case you might be railing against a sin that none of us here have actually committed.

The topic of this thread was the dismissal of the S&C coach. You clearly think that the dismissal was outrageously unreasonable. I have no idea if it was or not, and no one on this thread has presented any facts to demonstrate one way or the other. You presented a strongly-worded characterization of the situation, and I asked if an opposite characterization was also colorable -- which is a fair question, because often a set of facts can be characterized in different ways. Unfortunately, none of our subsequent discussion has shed much light on the original topic.

I don't think he was insulting you with the "your kind" comment. I think he means the "Rice kind" that tends to overthink every little point of an argument or discussion. It is prevalent amongst Rice alumni, because frankly Rice alumni are smarter than your average person. Certainly smarter than the idiots who frequent the Aggie and Longhorn boards, for example. So don't be offended.

I theorize this about the Yox situation (and I do not KNOW, I'm simply speculating). Coach Yox said or did something or wanted to do something that was possibly politically incorrect. The right thing to do by all accounts, but could be misconstrued. So naturally the admin types, not wanting to offend anyone and possibly because Yox didn't back down about it, turned the tables.

So, now we are without a strength and conditioning coach right when we need one the most....for summer workouts. WELL DONE, HIGHER UPS!

I know most on this board are fired up about JK, but I for one am not.

But in the end, I'm sure its all Bailiff's fault.

(05-25-2016 05:20 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 04:59 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  For a board that has graduates from a school that requires intense academic requirements, comprehension of simple arguments are not a strong point on here.

Perhaps not!

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Most comments from people on here are sarcastic. So when you pose those questions, I took it as a sarcastic quip saying I could not have viewed it as the other way. IF it was a sincere inquiry, I apologize.

It was a sincere inquiry. Apology accepted.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  But I've dealt with your kind before around here, and most of the time when called out, some significant crawfishing occurs.

I'm not sure what you think my "kind" is, but in any case, following an apology with an insult could be perceived as giving short shrift to the apology.

(05-25-2016 04:10 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  The reason I don't let it go is because it damages our football program and athletic program as a whole. ?

But what exactly did I (or anyone else on this thread) do that constitutes "it"? While I understand your enthusiasm, in this case you might be railing against a sin that none of us here have actually committed.

The topic of this thread was the dismissal of the S&C coach. You clearly think that the dismissal was outrageously unreasonable. I have no idea if it was or not, and no one on this thread has presented any facts to demonstrate one way or the other. You presented a strongly-worded characterization of the situation, and I asked if an opposite characterization was also colorable -- which is a fair question, because often a set of facts can be characterized in different ways. Unfortunately, none of our subsequent discussion has shed much light on the original topic.

I don't think he was insulting you with the "your kind" comment. I think he means the "Rice kind" that tends to overthink every little point of an argument or discussion. It is prevalent amongst Rice alumni, because frankly Rice alumni are smarter than your average person. Certainly smarter than the idiots who frequent the Aggie and Longhorn boards, for example. So don't be offended.

I theorize this about the Yox situation (and I do not KNOW, I'm simply speculating). Coach Yox said or did something or wanted to do something that was possibly politically incorrect. The right thing to do by all accounts, but could be misconstrued. So naturally the admin types, not wanting to offend anyone and possibly because Yox didn't back down about it, turned the tables.

So, now we are without a strength and conditioning coach right when we need one the most....for summer workouts. WELL DONE, HIGHER UPS!

I know most on this board are fired up about JK, but I for one am not.

Good post.

Yox sure had a great pedigree, but seems like we had an inordinate amount of critical injuries the last couple years that we couldn't overcome.

UH has Yancey McKnight, who kept our injury situation in check when he was here, IIRC. Clearly he did a helluva job for the coogs last year. He's who I would want if I had a choice of anyone; best in the country. Mensa made a great move in hiring him.

(05-25-2016 06:47 PM)davidw Wrote:  Yox sure had a great pedigree, but seems like we had an inordinate amount of critical injuries the last couple years that we couldn't overcome.

UH has Yancey McKnight, who kept our injury situation in check when he was here, IIRC. Clearly he did a helluva job for the coogs last year. He's who I would want if I had a choice of anyone; best in the country. Mensa made a great move in hiring him.

Don't forget Coach K