(09-29-2016 07:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 07:16 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arrillaga

$100 M in '06 and $151 M in '13. This alone is a very large part of the reason Stanford's athletic department endowment is about $500 M while Rice's is about $40 M. Both say they return about 5 to 8% per year. When Rice has someone get the endowment there, we can get and keep our coaches. Not the other way around.

Precisely. And Stanford has 2 other dot com donors who have each contributed $100+MM to the athletic endowment. In other words, Stanford has 3 mega-donors who have contributed over $450MM of their $500MM athletic endowment. Otherwise, Rice and Stanford would be in the same boat (save for Stanford collecting $30+MM annually from the Pac-12).

Arrillaga's contributions to Stanford have been much more substantial/generous than those $251 million checks. Most of it goes for facilities, athletics and elsewhere on campus. Here's an informative profile published in 2001 that describes in detail the rapid escalation of his philanthropy to Stanford in the 1990s: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Si...948340.php

Wall Street Journal subscribers can read this 2013 account of a $500K donation to Stanford's football program by a Saudi Arabian alum. (Dr. K is quoted.)

For years, Stanford has has a deep pool of more-modest supporters. This 1998 article said its equivalent of the Owl Club (The Buck Cardinal Club) then had 5,500+ members who raised $2.5 million a year for scholarships. The athletic endowment was even then $92 million, generating $4.5 million a year.

I'll never forget what JK said when we were touring the Stanford facilities a couple of years ago. He said that his motto is: "The best day to plant a tree...25 years ago...The second best day...today".

I think we are really close to some additional major facility improvements and a positive conference move. Given the status of almost all of the current programs, I think we're in really good shape overall. No, we won't become Stanford but we can make great progress toward where Rice should be.

I have always had the feeling there were anti athletic people at Rice, of course when you have seminars on parents weekend about how to end athletics at Rice, one could understand how I felt that way. Is there a faction of this sort at Stanford? Never fails to amaze me that Cal embraced the 60s-70s culture, but yet supports football enough to compete in PAC.

(09-30-2016 08:18 AM)ETx Owl Wrote:  I have always had the feeling there were anti athletic people at Rice, of course when you have seminars on parents weekend about how to end athletics at Rice, one could understand how I felt that way.

wow is that true?

(09-29-2016 08:36 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 07:23 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 07:16 PM)BufflOwl Wrote:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Arrillaga

$100 M in '06 and $151 M in '13. This alone is a very large part of the reason Stanford's athletic department endowment is about $500 M while Rice's is about $40 M. Both say they return about 5 to 8% per year. When Rice has someone get the endowment there, we can get and keep our coaches. Not the other way around.

Precisely. And Stanford has 2 other dot com donors who have each contributed $100+MM to the athletic endowment. In other words, Stanford has 3 mega-donors who have contributed over $450MM of their $500MM athletic endowment. Otherwise, Rice and Stanford would be in the same boat (save for Stanford collecting $30+MM annually from the Pac-12).

Arrillaga's contributions to Stanford have been much more substantial/generous than those $251 million checks. Most of it goes for facilities, athletics and elsewhere on campus. Here's an informative profile published in 2001 that describes in detail the rapid escalation of his philanthropy to Stanford in the 1990s: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Si...948340.php

Wall Street Journal subscribers can read this 2013 account of a $500K donation to Stanford's football program by a Saudi Arabian alum. (Dr. K is quoted.)

For years, Stanford has has a deep pool of more-modest supporters. This 1998 article said its equivalent of the Owl Club (The Buck Cardinal Club) then had 5,500+ members who raised $2.5 million a year for scholarships. The athletic endowment was even then $92 million, generating $4.5 million a year.

In 1998 their annual club was raising $2.5 M per year and their endowment was $92 M. By 2006 both numbers were 4X to 5X that. And this board thinks not much changed? We're really saying it was a young fiery Harbaugh that got the football program going? Come on. Mega gifts get the facilities, coaches and recruits. Not the other way around. You'll see the same pattern at any other program during a period of rapid ascension.

(09-30-2016 08:09 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'll never forget what JK said when we were touring the Stanford facilities a couple of years ago. He said that his motto is: "The best day to plant a tree...25 years ago...The second best day...today".

I think we are really close to some additional major facility improvements and a positive conference move. Given the status of almost all of the current programs, I think we're in really good shape overall. No, we won't become Stanford but we can make great progress toward where Rice should be.

Thanks for the healthy dose of optimism. I'm going to remember to re-read this post after the Southern Miss game!

(09-30-2016 08:09 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'll never forget what JK said when we were touring the Stanford facilities a couple of years ago. He said that his motto is: "The best day to plant a tree...25 years ago...The second best day...today".

I think we are really close to some additional major facility improvements and a positive conference move. Given the status of almost all of the current programs, I think we're in really good shape overall. No, we won't become Stanford but we can make great progress toward where Rice should be.

Similarly, the best way to raise 100mm is to have $100mm already.

The challenge we face is that the 'level' of commitment to athletics from the BOT, while consistent and obvious if you look (The Chairman of the BOT didn't put his name on a building he didn't plan on being used for its purpose in 20+ years) it is more obvious other places.

The endowment spends and has spent something like $20mm per year every year towards athletic scholarships. That represents the perpetual earnings on say $400mm in endowment funds. Why not make it official? That $20mm/yr in a few years will be like $10mm today, and we could spend $10mm/yr just on the rec center, beer bike track and intramurals... and right NOW, it's scholarships.

Now that you have a $400mm endowment, soliciting other millions from people becomes easier. Sure, it'd be great if I could write a $100mm check and just do it myself, but I can't.... but LOTS of us can and have funded the equivalent of scholarships over our lives... some of us many of them.

(09-30-2016 10:27 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 08:09 AM)Houston Owl Wrote:  I'll never forget what JK said when we were touring the Stanford facilities a couple of years ago. He said that his motto is: "The best day to plant a tree...25 years ago...The second best day...today".

I think we are really close to some additional major facility improvements and a positive conference move. Given the status of almost all of the current programs, I think we're in really good shape overall. No, we won't become Stanford but we can make great progress toward where Rice should be.

Similarly, the best way to raise 100mm is to have $100mm already.

Kinda like Steve Martin's instructions on how to become a millionaire and never pay taxes: First, get a million dollars.

ETA: Sorry for being a jack*** in an otherwise good trend in the conversation. Houston Owl, I too am glad to hear the optimism.

(09-30-2016 08:18 AM)ETx Owl Wrote:  I have always had the feeling there were anti athletic people at Rice, of course when you have seminars on parents weekend about how to end athletics at Rice, one could understand how I felt that way. Is there a faction of this sort at Stanford?

If there is, it doesn't appear to be very vocal, if these two 2015 Stanford Daily articles (and their comments) are representative:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/...-stanford/

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/12/03/...epartment/

Success breeds admiration and support?

(09-30-2016 01:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Kinda like Steve Martin's instructions on how to become a millionaire and never pay taxes: First, get a million dollars.

ETA: Sorry for being a jack*** in an otherwise good trend in the conversation. Houston Owl, I too am glad to hear the optimism.

lol... yeah, I was thinking of that... what I meant was the best way to raise 100mm is to have that be going from 100mm to 200mm, not from zero to 100mm.... or even better, going from 400mm to 500mm.

The point is to give people comfort that their gifts won't be funding something entirely different in 10 years.

(09-30-2016 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 01:30 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Kinda like Steve Martin's instructions on how to become a millionaire and never pay taxes: First, get a million dollars.

ETA: Sorry for being a jack*** in an otherwise good trend in the conversation. Houston Owl, I too am glad to hear the optimism.

lol... yeah, I was thinking of that... what I meant was the best way to raise 100mm is to have that be going from 100mm to 200mm, not from zero to 100mm.... or even better, going from 400mm to 500mm.

The point is to give people comfort that their gifts won't be funding something entirely different in 10 years.

Yeah, I knew what you meant, I agree, and I've previously supported your argument in favor of this idea. I sometimes work with trusts where we create sub-accounts so that we can separately track classes of funds, but they're all essentially the same pile of money. It seems like this requires thinking of an endowment in the same way.

Got me thinking though, of what might be the impediment and it's hard not to be cynical (cuz Rice). Massively funding an athletic endowment from the University endowment (even though this is basically being done already) sounds permanent, and feels like a high priority is being placed on athletics. I've never gotten the feeling that the university admin is comfortable with that kind of appearance.

(09-30-2016 05:09 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  Got me thinking though, of what might be the impediment and it's hard not to be cynical (cuz Rice). Massively funding an athletic endowment from the University endowment (even though this is basically being done already) sounds permanent, and feels like a high priority is being placed on athletics. I've never gotten the feeling that the university admin is comfortable with that kind of appearance.

I agree, but since 200mm in this day and age only kicks out $10mm (or even much less) in an annuity... AND both intramurals and the Rec center (is HPE still?) are under athletics, then I just feel like there is enough wiggle room that the 'appearance' isn't as great as it sounds.

My goal would be to use it to fund NCAA d1 specific scholarships alongside the 'general fitness' funding.

Said differently, the endowment would be about creating/branding Rice as a 'healthy' university.

Maybe we can keep the game tomorrow as close as Stanford did tonight (44-6).

"In 1961 Kenneth Pitzer was selected the new president of Rice University. It is known that Dr. Pitzer was not a fan of big-time athletics. Probably in 1962 a decision was made
to de-emphasize football. It was very simple to implement. Neely, the athletic director and head football coach, was advised that there would be thirty scholarships a year granted to the football program. It is not certain how many had been granted previously but it was probably forty-five or fifty. In fact, it is probable that there were no limitations at all."

Froggy Williams

In 1969, Pitzer was appointed President of Stanford. Did he try to do the same thing there?

(10-03-2016 08:43 AM)JSA Wrote:  "In 1961 Kenneth Pitzer was selected the new president of Rice University. It is known that Dr. Pitzer was not a fan of big-time athletics. Probably in 1962 a decision was made
to de-emphasize football. It was very simple to implement. Neely, the athletic director and head football coach, was advised that there would be thirty scholarships a year granted to the football program. It is not certain how many had been granted previously but it was probably forty-five or fifty. In fact, it is probable that there were no limitations at all."

Froggy Williams

In 1969, Pritzer was appointed President of Stanford. Did he try to do the same thing there?

Can't speak for "previously", but in my freshman year of 63-64, we awarded 22 scholarships. Texas gave 75. I was told the athletic department as a whole was allowed only 50 scholarships, of which 25 we allotted to football. Even then, with a class size of 425, we had 1 out every 13 students on football scholarship. i wonder what the ratio is at Stanford these days.

(10-03-2016 08:43 AM)JSA Wrote:  "In 1961 Kenneth Pitzer was selected the new president of Rice University. It is known that Dr. Pitzer was not a fan of big-time athletics. Probably in 1962 a decision was made
to de-emphasize football. It was very simple to implement. Neely, the athletic director and head football coach, was advised that there would be thirty scholarships a year granted to the football program. It is not certain how many had been granted previously but it was probably forty-five or fifty. In fact, it is probable that there were no limitations at all."
Froggy Williams
In 1969, Pitzer was appointed President of Stanford. Did he try to do the same thing there?

I don't think so, because athletics were more entrenched in the Stanford culture. It has been my understanding that there were fears that he would do so, and he may have even made some noises in that direction, and the response among alumni who cared was to give sufficiently to increase the athletic endowment, with the idea that a self-funding program would be much harder to attack.

Almaden, you're out there, do you have a better understanding of what happened?

Was there an interim between him and Hackerman- seems I remember a lot if student unrest at Rice before I got there in 1971. I attribute a lot of this to the cultural change that Rice went through and the anti- athletic crowd to get their power.

(10-03-2016 09:52 AM)ETx Owl Wrote:  Was there an interim between him and Hackerman- seems I remember a lot if student unrest at Rice before I got there in 1971. I attribute a lot of this to the cultural change that Rice went through and the anti- athletic crowd to get their power.

Thee was an interim year with Frank Vandiver acting as president. Vandiver signed my first diploma.

The board initially decided to hire Harris Masterson, who had been at Rice before taking the presidency of what is now UT-Chattanooga. Masterson had a lot of enemies among the faculty, and student-faculty revolt and demonstrations caused him to withdraw from consideration. There was the interim year with Vandiver, and then Hackerman was hired. Masterson would have been the first non-S/E president, but that fell later to George Rupp. Masterson, Vandiver, and Hackerman were all at least for the record pro-athletics.

Probably the most harmful event for athletics was the promotion from within Neely's staff of Bo Hagan to become football coach and AD when Neely retired. The position actually attracted a lot of very high profile interest, including Tommy Prothro (then coach of #2 UCLA) and Ray Graves (then coach of Florida). Prothro's motivation was twofold--at UCLA he was always going to play second fiddle to John Wooden, and he had built the UCLA program largely off a talent pipeline from the Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange area that could be more easily maintained from Houston than Los Angeles. I find it interesting to contemplate how the athletic program might have been different if we had joined SMU and UH (who both got a lot of good players from Prothro's Golden Triangle hunting grounds) among the first in the region to embrace African-American athletes instead of being one of the last.

(10-03-2016 09:52 AM)ETx Owl Wrote:  Was there an interim between him and Hackerman- seems I remember a lot if student unrest at Rice before I got there in 1971. I attribute a lot of this to the cultural change that Rice went through and the anti- athletic crowd to get their power.

Here's the history: http://ricehistoricalsociety.org/images/...ng2003.pdf

(10-03-2016 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 08:43 AM)JSA Wrote:  "In 1961 Kenneth Pitzer was selected the new president of Rice University. It is known that Dr. Pitzer was not a fan of big-time athletics. Probably in 1962 a decision was made to de-emphasize football. It was very simple to implement. Neely, the athletic director and head football coach, was advised that there would be thirty scholarships a year granted to the football program. It is not certain how many had been granted previously but it was probably forty-five or fifty. In fact, it is probable that there were no limitations at all." -- Froggy Williams

In 1969, Pitzer was appointed President of Stanford. Did he try to do the same thing there?

I don't think so, because athletics were more entrenched in the Stanford culture. It has been my understanding that there were fears that he would do so, and he may have even made some noises in that direction, and the response among alumni who cared was to give sufficiently to increase the athletic endowment, with the idea that a self-funding program would be much harder to attack.

Almaden, you're out there, do you have a better understanding of what happened?

I didn't move to the Bay Area until November 1976, but my recollection was that Pitzer had a number of institutional conflict issues not uncommon in campuses of that era ... including student protests, military-sponsored research (e.g., Stanford Research Institute) etc.

Sometime this week I'll see if I can locate some info on his impact (if any) in their athletics support & enrivonment.