I don't know how many of you got dinged for participating in the V2C2 survey that ended today. I'm presuming almost everyone (as it was intended for anyone with ties to Rice). But they spend a lot of time asking open ended (yet leading) questions, and there's not one part of the strategy/questions, or even part of a question, around what the future of athletics should/could potentially be for the university.

If there is ever an indication on where athletics stands in the long-term vision of the university, I think that might be summarizing it quite well. Either they're too dense to realize that it's still a major function of the university and probably isn't going anywhere, or Division 1 athletics isn't in the long-range plan for the university. How something that is a major cost center for the university, that takes up large amounts of space on campus in terms of buildings, etc., yet isn't part of a strategic vision/planning for the university is beyond me.

It's funny, because the introductory letter from President Leebron mentions athletic facilities. So I'm probably being a little overdramatic. But the nature of the survey completely ignores that as a major question that the university's leadership needs to figure out (whether they're in or out), and you've got a survey going to anyone with an investment in the Rice brand, but you don't want to find out if they think it's still worth the effort to chase those results or at least adjust the focus.

I made a point to fill it out and emphasize that I think Rice needs growth. Growth in the right context would, among other positive attributes for Rice, improve the critical mass of student participation at athletics events. Our student athletes deserve a lot better support than they currently receive.

I made sure to stick in a diatribe somewhere about the embarrassing incongruity of this university being associated with CUSA & the potential negative drag on our reputation over time compared with the benefits that would come with returning to a P5 conference and a plan for increased investment in athletics to achieve that result. But yeah, there wasn't an obvious question in the survey that would have prompted anyone to address or even think about athletics. Which probably says it all.