I thought I'd do a little mental experiment comparing the state of affairs in 2005 vs today. At the end of each of these seasons, Rice faced a major turning point in the football program and it's interesting to compare and contrast the years...

State of things in 2005:
• The Hatfield era ends in a dismal 1-10 record in our first C-USA season. Just two of the losses were within a touchdown. Our only win was against Tulane at HRS. The lowest point total an opponent laid on us was 27 by SMU. All others were in the 30’s and 40’s, and reached as high as 51 against UT and 63 against UCLA.
• The team had underachieved and had not been to a bowl in years, and while there had been some success with a recent 8-win season, it was becoming a distant memory. The only recent “championship” we could point to is the 5-way SWC crown in 1994. Student turnout was dismal. Not many Owls were ending up in the NFL during this era.
• Speaking of HRS, it was more of a crumbling dump than it is today. We were still picking splinters out of our butts from the wooden bleachers, the main scoreboard was above the R-Room and kind of worked, but man was it dated! Our players played on a bright green AstroTurf field that still had the original crazy-high crown. The only “new” facility was the Cox weight room, which was already undersized and showing its age.
• Administratively, Bobby May was retiring and the athletic program was kind of chugging along as it always did in the 80’s and 90’s. In other sports, the baseball team was in the midst of its CWS runs, coming off the championship in 2003, but the other sports were nothing to write home about. Aside from Reckling, we played our games in aging, ancient facilities that in 2005 made us a laughingstock in college athletics.
• Reasons for optimism: CDC is hired, we hired the Toad and Major to coach the team, and we felt we had some special talent with Clement and Dillard. C-USA was an improved conference situation with the proximity and quality of opponents.
• Reasons for pessimism: Would anything EVER change at Rice for the fortunes of the football team?

State of things in 2017:
• The Bailiff era will hopefully end at worst with a 1-12 campaign. As of this writing, we’ve been able to hold three opponents under 21 points: UTSA, FIU, and UTEP. Others have scored at will on us, as high as 62 points.
• Despite the difficulty of the last 3 seasons, we had been to 3 consecutive bowls in recent history, 5 since 2006. Also, we celebrated our first out-right conference championship in many, many moons. Numerous players in this era have made it to the NFL, including the likes of Andrew Sendejo, Phillip Gaines, Christian Covington, Chris Bosworth, Jarret Dillard, James Casey, Luke Willson, and Vance McDonald.
• HRS has had some updates: new FieldTurf with a flatter crown, aluminum seating, a new EZF with video board, improved concessions (that sell alcohol!), ticketing that can take credit cards, and some banners and paint that make HRS a bit easier on the eye.
• Administratively, JK is trying to make strides in all sports and recognizes the unique situation of Rice in the NCAA landscape. In other sports, some of the shine has come off baseball but we are still investing in Reckling and the program. We are enjoying new or updated facilities for nearly all sports: basketball/volleyball, tennis, swimming, soccer, track and golf.
• Reasons for optimism: In just 12 years, there have been more investments and improvements than we might have thought possible. While there is still a ways to go, we should be able to build on recent successes and get back on track. I’d like to also be optimistic about a new coach coming on board!
• Reasons for pessimism: Change has come slowly and in some cases, such as our conference situation, we have taken a dramatic step backwards. Also, some things remain the same – is there real commitment to athletics (especially football) by the administration? Last, student turnout from late 90’s to now has been bad – have we lost that generation of fans (and donors) forever, and what exactly are we doing to reverse this trend?

My analysis on this list is we have made strides in football and in the program. We've surely made mis-steps along the way (Braun, Toad, Greenspan, conference alignment, continued student apathy). All in all, I'm hopeful we can build on the successes and learn better from our mistakes to get to a better place.

Quote:My analysis on this list is we have made strides in football and in the program. We've surely made mis-steps along the way (Braun, Toad, Greenspan, conference alignment, continued student apathy). All in all, I'm hopeful we can build on the successes and learn better from our mistakes to get to a better place.

I simply do not see this AT ALL. Bailiff is likely #2 on that list of mistakes (edged out only by Greenspan's terribleness).

Since 2005, we have slid from a decent G5 conference to one of the worst. Our TV revenue is near zero. We are so bad, that Hatfield's 1-10 season in 2005 ranked HIGHER than last year (let alone this one). This doesn't include the fact that under Hatfield, we beat ranked teams. Bailiff has NEVER beaten a team ranked in the top 50.

Rice Football is firmly a dumpster fire now. It wasn't great in 2005, but it wasn't a flaming turd either.

(10-30-2017 01:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:My analysis on this list is we have made strides in football and in the program. We've surely made mis-steps along the way (Braun, Toad, Greenspan, conference alignment, continued student apathy). All in all, I'm hopeful we can build on the successes and learn better from our mistakes to get to a better place.

I simply do not see this AT ALL. Bailiff is likely #2 on that list of mistakes (edged out only by Greenspan's terribleness).

Since 2005, we have slid from a decent G5 conference to one of the worst. Our TV revenue is near zero. We are so bad, that Hatfield's 1-10 season in 2005 ranked HIGHER than last year (let alone this one). This doesn't include the fact that under Hatfield, we beat ranked teams. Bailiff has NEVER beaten a team ranked in the top 50.

Rice Football is firmly a dumpster fire now. It wasn't great in 2005, but it wasn't a flaming turd either.

I did consider naming the retention of Bailiff as a mis-step because it certainly was, but was trying to point out that there have been improvements and that things may not be as bleak. I get your point about revenues. I wonder, though, with the mass layoff's happening at the Disney sports channel and others that the days of big TV money are numbered and the likes of C-USA are the first to be hit with something that will be more widespread as the contracts expire.

(10-30-2017 02:57 PM)wiessguy Wrote:  I did consider naming the retention of Bailiff as a mis-step because it certainly was, but was trying to point out that there have been improvements and that things may not be as bleak. I get your point about revenues. I wonder, though, with the mass layoff's happening at the Disney sports channel and others that the days of big TV money are numbered and the likes of C-USA are the first to be hit with something that will be more widespread as the contracts expire.

Big TV money is certainly dying. When the first rumblings of realignment started, it was all about location and potential viewership. TCU was good and in the DFW TV market - that got them a Big XII invite. Boise was good but in Boise, so they missed out. Rice was in Houston but wasn't good, so we missed out too.

As we move more and more to online streaming, I expect each major conference/team will have their own PPV/online stream - almost an unbundled experience. The P5 will continue to draw strong viewership and people willing to pay. Same with someone like ND. The problem with the above is location doesn't matter anymore. So the boost Rice had last time (by being in Houston) is gone. We are left with a conference of rejects and no fan base. So, there is really no good path forward for us to make money.

To me, this is why things are more bleak than ever. Because we missed the boat, and I do not see another one coming. The Rice vs UTSA game has 1300 people watching on facebook - that's a rounding error in terms of revenue if we tried to monetize it.

regarding the bowl games - we have seen that no one other than this board cares about that. when 80+ teams go to a bowl, it is practically a participation trophy. everyone goes to a bowl now, so it isn't an achievement worth talking about. We also saw Marshall win 10 games, 3 years in a row. But they didn't beat anyone worth a damn, and as a result, they are stuck in C-USA too.

Bailiff has presided over possibly the worst 11 year span of Football at the worst possible time. Had we had Hatfield 2.0 with 5 or so wins over ranked teams, Rice may have been treading water versus sinking. with 0 wins against top 50 teams and playing no-name directional schools, we may as well be in D3 because that is how much exposure we get now.

(10-30-2017 03:19 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 02:57 PM)wiessguy Wrote:  I did consider naming the retention of Bailiff as a mis-step because it certainly was, but was trying to point out that there have been improvements and that things may not be as bleak. I get your point about revenues. I wonder, though, with the mass layoff's happening at the Disney sports channel and others that the days of big TV money are numbered and the likes of C-USA are the first to be hit with something that will be more widespread as the contracts expire.

Big TV money is certainly dying. When the first rumblings of realignment started, it was all about location and potential viewership. TCU was good and in the DFW TV market - that got them a Big XII invite. Boise was good but in Boise, so they missed out. Rice was in Houston but wasn't good, so we missed out too.

As we move more and more to online streaming, I expect each major conference/team will have their own PPV/online stream - almost an unbundled experience. The P5 will continue to draw strong viewership and people willing to pay. Same with someone like ND. The problem with the above is location doesn't matter anymore. So the boost Rice had last time (by being in Houston) is gone. We are left with a conference of rejects and no fan base. So, there is really no good path forward for us to make money.

To me, this is why things are more bleak than ever. Because we missed the boat, and I do not see another one coming. The Rice vs UTSA game has 1300 people watching on facebook - that's a rounding error in terms of revenue if we tried to monetize it.

regarding the bowl games - we have seen that no one other than this board cares about that. when 80+ teams go to a bowl, it is practically a participation trophy. everyone goes to a bowl now, so it isn't an achievement worth talking about. We also saw Marshall win 10 games, 3 years in a row. But they didn't beat anyone worth a damn, and as a result, they are stuck in C-USA too.

Bailiff has presided over possibly the worst 11 year span of Football at the worst possible time. Had we had Hatfield 2.0 with 5 or so wins over ranked teams, Rice may have been treading water versus sinking. with 0 wins against top 50 teams and playing no-name directional schools, we may as well be in D3 because that is how much exposure we get now.

If you believe all of the above, (and this is a serious question, not a shot)- why are you still here? If it over and done, why do you care about the last gasps?

FTR- I am not as pessimistic about our situation. It's not great, but not impossible

(10-30-2017 02:57 PM)wiessguy Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 01:40 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

Quote:My analysis on this list is we have made strides in football and in the program. We've surely made mis-steps along the way (Braun, Toad, Greenspan, conference alignment, continued student apathy). All in all, I'm hopeful we can build on the successes and learn better from our mistakes to get to a better place.

I simply do not see this AT ALL. Bailiff is likely #2 on that list of mistakes (edged out only by Greenspan's terribleness).

Since 2005, we have slid from a decent G5 conference to one of the worst. Our TV revenue is near zero. We are so bad, that Hatfield's 1-10 season in 2005 ranked HIGHER than last year (let alone this one). This doesn't include the fact that under Hatfield, we beat ranked teams. Bailiff has NEVER beaten a team ranked in the top 50.

Rice Football is firmly a dumpster fire now. It wasn't great in 2005, but it wasn't a flaming turd either.

I did consider naming the retention of Bailiff as a mis-step because it certainly was, but was trying to point out that there have been improvements and that things may not be as bleak. I get your point about revenues. I wonder, though, with the mass layoff's happening at the Disney sports channel and others that the days of big TV money are numbered and the likes of C-USA are the first to be hit with something that will be more widespread as the contracts expire.

You also picked LA in 6

Actually it is encouraging that they have made some progress in certain areas, but football is a disaster. The winning meant ZERO, because anyone in the know understood the general level of competition that we were beating. The only "good" thing, as I posted years ago, was that at least we were beating up on the dregs, however meaningless. We can no longer even make that claim.

I think the only clear portion of the program where we can say that progress has been made since 2005 is the number of players that have gone on to play at the next level. If anything, I think that is a stat that validates a program more than a W-L record. The ultimate goal of a university is to prepare everyone for the rest of their life (as opposed to piling up arbitrary statistics for message board fodder and populating a flag pole museum) and the ability of our staff to get guys to the next level has been a huge positive that has not existed in quite some time. The success of the secondary sports has also been a positive for the AD.

A good portion of the positive things listed above that have happened to this program are more of an artifact of the changing landscape and culture of university life in general and more specifically FBS football. We have seen a huge boom across the country in capex for ridiculous luxuries for 18 year olds to the point where it is undoubtedly a bubble. Obviously, you have to keep up with the Joneses and building the EZFs, video boards, practice domes, smoothie bars, barber shops, & luxury apartments for the entire student body are obviously just the cost of doing business as a top tier university at the moment and Rice has abided with this trend in multiple ways. Likewise, any team with a winning record gets a bowl invite most years now despite many of the lower tier bowls existing as glorified parlor games for Vegas bettors. The days of going 8-4 or 9-3 only to be left at home during bowl season are gone...we could legitimately get a bowl invite with a 5-7 year. Going to a bowl 2 out of 4 years should be the minimum standard at Rice in this environment, especially considering the level of competition in CUSA.

(10-30-2017 11:46 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  I think the only clear portion of the program where we can say that progress has been made since 2005 is the number of players that have gone on to play at the next level. If anything, I think that is a stat that validates a program more than a W-L record. The ultimate goal of a university is to prepare everyone for the rest of their life (as opposed to piling up arbitrary statistics for message board fodder and populating a flag pole museum) and the ability of our staff to get guys to the next level has been a huge positive that has not existed in quite some time. The success of the secondary sports has also been a positive for the AD.

A good portion of the positive things listed above that have happened to this program are more of an artifact of the changing landscape and culture of university life in general and more specifically FBS football. We have seen a huge boom across the country in capex for ridiculous luxuries for 18 year olds to the point where it is undoubtedly a bubble. Obviously, you have to keep up with the Joneses and building the EZFs, video boards, practice domes, smoothie bars, barber shops, & luxury apartments for the entire student body are obviously just the cost of doing business as a top tier university at the moment and Rice has abided with this trend in multiple ways. Likewise, any team with a winning record gets a bowl invite most years now despite many of the lower tier bowls existing as glorified parlor games for Vegas bettors. The days of going 8-4 or 9-3 only to be left at home during bowl season are gone...we could legitimately get a bowl invite with a 5-7 year. Going to a bowl 2 out of 4 years should be the minimum standard at Rice in this environment, especially considering the level of competition in CUSA.

The capex observation is so on point. Continuation of the luxuryboxation of everything. I mean how in the world could our young darlings possibly deal with a world where they are not waited on hand and foot with their very own butler and chauffeur. Shocking that they might have to share a bathroom or not have 20 choices of meals. I mean they earned all those participation trophies.....

(10-31-2017 01:26 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 11:46 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  I think the only clear portion of the program where we can say that progress has been made since 2005 is the number of players that have gone on to play at the next level. If anything, I think that is a stat that validates a program more than a W-L record. The ultimate goal of a university is to prepare everyone for the rest of their life (as opposed to piling up arbitrary statistics for message board fodder and populating a flag pole museum) and the ability of our staff to get guys to the next level has been a huge positive that has not existed in quite some time. The success of the secondary sports has also been a positive for the AD.

A good portion of the positive things listed above that have happened to this program are more of an artifact of the changing landscape and culture of university life in general and more specifically FBS football. We have seen a huge boom across the country in capex for ridiculous luxuries for 18 year olds to the point where it is undoubtedly a bubble. Obviously, you have to keep up with the Joneses and building the EZFs, video boards, practice domes, smoothie bars, barber shops, & luxury apartments for the entire student body are obviously just the cost of doing business as a top tier university at the moment and Rice has abided with this trend in multiple ways. Likewise, any team with a winning record gets a bowl invite most years now despite many of the lower tier bowls existing as glorified parlor games for Vegas bettors. The days of going 8-4 or 9-3 only to be left at home during bowl season are gone...we could legitimately get a bowl invite with a 5-7 year. Going to a bowl 2 out of 4 years should be the minimum standard at Rice in this environment, especially considering the level of competition in CUSA.

The capex observation is so on point. Continuation of the luxuryboxation of everything. I mean how in the world could our young darlings possibly deal with a world where they are not waited on hand and foot with their very own butler and chauffeur. Shocking that they might have to share a bathroom or not have 20 choices of meals. I mean they earned all those participation trophies.....

Preparing , on average , less than 1 player per year "for the next level" at the cost of millions per year hardly qualifies as a success. The real problem is that we prepare them better for careers outside of football than we do for the NFL, and that shows every Saturday.

(10-31-2017 01:26 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(10-30-2017 11:46 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  I think the only clear portion of the program where we can say that progress has been made since 2005 is the number of players that have gone on to play at the next level. If anything, I think that is a stat that validates a program more than a W-L record. The ultimate goal of a university is to prepare everyone for the rest of their life (as opposed to piling up arbitrary statistics for message board fodder and populating a flag pole museum) and the ability of our staff to get guys to the next level has been a huge positive that has not existed in quite some time. The success of the secondary sports has also been a positive for the AD.

A good portion of the positive things listed above that have happened to this program are more of an artifact of the changing landscape and culture of university life in general and more specifically FBS football. We have seen a huge boom across the country in capex for ridiculous luxuries for 18 year olds to the point where it is undoubtedly a bubble. Obviously, you have to keep up with the Joneses and building the EZFs, video boards, practice domes, smoothie bars, barber shops, & luxury apartments for the entire student body are obviously just the cost of doing business as a top tier university at the moment and Rice has abided with this trend in multiple ways. Likewise, any team with a winning record gets a bowl invite most years now despite many of the lower tier bowls existing as glorified parlor games for Vegas bettors. The days of going 8-4 or 9-3 only to be left at home during bowl season are gone...we could legitimately get a bowl invite with a 5-7 year. Going to a bowl 2 out of 4 years should be the minimum standard at Rice in this environment, especially considering the level of competition in CUSA.

The capex observation is so on point. Continuation of the luxuryboxation of everything. I mean how in the world could our young darlings possibly deal with a world where they are not waited on hand and foot with their very own butler and chauffeur. Shocking that they might have to share a bathroom or not have 20 choices of meals. I mean they earned all those participation trophies.....

Ah yes, criticize the young men who are risking their health on the football fields for taking advantage of the arms race that their Boomer and Gen X coaches/athletic administrators started in order to try and compensate them and lure them to their school over the others.

It is definitely the high school players demanding the luxuries that is driving this movement, as opposed to the universities trying to compete with their competition and create a unique selling point.

Yep, it's ALWAYS the fault of the younger generation. Those kids had to be given a participation trophy by someone. I wonder who that was?

During my time at Rice we had

1) Black mold in the locker room
2) Rats in the ceiling
3) No warm running water in the facility (unless it was summer and the pipes warmed the water to scalding)

Some of you need to get a grip, we have the least spoiled program in the nation. They aren't welcome by a majority of the regular students because they needed assistance getting into the school. The Shepherd School students carry more celebrity that any member of the team. We built a facility for them a couple decades too late (they showed me renderings of a facility on my official visit in 2008) and ran out of money for graphics so the walls are completely empty.

We're pretty awful this year there's no doubt, but I can assure you it's not because of spoiled players.

(10-31-2017 08:17 AM)McHargue Wrote:  During my time at Rice we had

1) Black mold in the locker room
2) Rats in the ceiling
3) No warm running water in the facility (unless it was summer and the pipes warmed the water to scalding)

Some of you need to get a grip, we have the least spoiled program in the nation. They aren't welcome by a majority of the regular students because they needed assistance getting into the school. The Shepherd School students carry more celebrity that any member of the team. We built a facility for them a couple decades too late (they showed me renderings of a facility on my official visit in 2008) and ran out of money for graphics so the walls are completely empty.

We're pretty awful this year there's no doubt, but I can assure you it's not because of spoiled players.

Sssshhhhhh, don't fight the overwhelming narrative that Millenials are nothing but entitled brats who want everything handed to them.

(10-31-2017 02:27 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  Preparing , on average , less than 1 player per year "for the next level" at the cost of millions per year hardly qualifies as a success. The real problem is that we prepare them better for careers outside of football than we do for the NFL, and that shows every Saturday.

I was not implying that the only benefit of the program is operating a glorified farm system for the NFL (under that analysis, almost every team fails), but rather it was my observation that we have a handful of active players on NFL rosters at the moment (and that has been the case for the last several years) and that was definitely not the case in 2005 or years prior. Clear advantage to 2017 v. 2005.

(10-31-2017 08:17 AM)McHargue Wrote:  During my time at Rice we had

1) Black mold in the locker room
2) Rats in the ceiling
3) No warm running water in the facility (unless it was summer and the pipes warmed the water to scalding)

Some of you need to get a grip, we have the least spoiled program in the nation. They aren't welcome by a majority of the regular students because they needed assistance getting into the school. The Shepherd School students carry more celebrity that any member of the team. We built a facility for them a couple decades too late (they showed me renderings of a facility on my official visit in 2008) and ran out of money for graphics so the walls are completely empty.

We're pretty awful this year there's no doubt, but I can assure you it's not because of spoiled players.

Sounds like the living conditions in my 4 years at Lovett.

I went to Louisiana Boys State at LSU in the summer of 1999 and stayed in a "freshmen" dorm that did not have air conditioning so I thought that was normal for university life. The relative luxury that all students are now exposed to at most top-tier schools is somewhat mind boggling to me, and all of this happened in the last 10-15 years.

The root cause for this building boom is the free money recklessly provided by the federal government (just chart out university capex next to student loan debt), but it feels good to blame the kids for taking advantage of the short term benefits of the system.

(10-31-2017 08:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 08:17 AM)McHargue Wrote:  During my time at Rice we had

1) Black mold in the locker room
2) Rats in the ceiling
3) No warm running water in the facility (unless it was summer and the pipes warmed the water to scalding)

Some of you need to get a grip, we have the least spoiled program in the nation. They aren't welcome by a majority of the regular students because they needed assistance getting into the school. The Shepherd School students carry more celebrity that any member of the team. We built a facility for them a couple decades too late (they showed me renderings of a facility on my official visit in 2008) and ran out of money for graphics so the walls are completely empty.

We're pretty awful this year there's no doubt, but I can assure you it's not because of spoiled players.

Sssshhhhhh, don't fight the overwhelming narrative that Millenials are nothing but entitled brats who want everything handed to them.

This whole "spoiled" narrative is preposterous. Comparatively speaking, Rice is at a huge disadvantage to other schools, even with the new end zone facility. The atmosphere on campus is hostile from students and faculty, the administration doesn't prioritize football, and the budget for football is absurdly underfunded.

By the time I arrived, the black mold and rats were gone (or at least under the surface). But the showers were still either scalding or freezing, whichever one was inconvenient for the weather. Also, we had to scramble for towels after practice because we didn't have enough for everyone on the team. That's pretty ridiculous.

For my last point about the budget for football being underfunded, I would be willing to bet my paycheck that Rice Football does not pay anywhere near the national average for a coaching budget. It spends $166k for the football recruiting budget which is embarrassingly underfunded. If you don't pay coaches (mainly talking about assistants here), a competitive wage, they won't come coach at your school. If you don't have the funds comparative to other institutions to recruit, you aren't going to be able to recruit quality players.

I mean why would you go to a company that doesn't pay as well? The same principle applies to the coaching market. It limits the options.

(10-31-2017 02:27 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  The real problem is that we prepare them better for careers outside of football than we do for the NFL, and that shows every Saturday.

Maybe I read this the wrong way, but why is this a problem? If by "we" you mean the coaching staff only, then I get it - Bailiff's/ the other coaches' jobs are to prepare players to win on the football field and let the academic support system and alumni network (both non-lettermen and former lettermen) handle the important part of educating the student athletes and preparing them for real world professions, considering only a few of our players each year will even get looks from the NFL, much less have sustainable careers. But if by "we" you mean the university as a whole, then I have to disagree with that being a problem.

(10-31-2017 09:42 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 08:17 AM)McHargue Wrote:  During my time at Rice we had

1) Black mold in the locker room
2) Rats in the ceiling
3) No warm running water in the facility (unless it was summer and the pipes warmed the water to scalding)

Some of you need to get a grip, we have the least spoiled program in the nation. They aren't welcome by a majority of the regular students because they needed assistance getting into the school. The Shepherd School students carry more celebrity that any member of the team. We built a facility for them a couple decades too late (they showed me renderings of a facility on my official visit in 2008) and ran out of money for graphics so the walls are completely empty.

We're pretty awful this year there's no doubt, but I can assure you it's not because of spoiled players.

This whole "spoiled" narrative is preposterous. Comparatively speaking, Rice is at a huge disadvantage to other schools, even with the new end zone facility. The atmosphere on campus is hostile from students and faculty, the administration doesn't prioritize football, and the budget for football is absurdly underfunded.

By the time I arrived, the black mold and rats were gone (or at least under the surface). But the showers were still either scalding or freezing, whichever one was inconvenient for the weather. Also, we had to scramble for towels after practice because we didn't have enough for everyone on the team. That's pretty ridiculous.

For my last point about the budget for football being underfunded, I would be willing to bet my paycheck that Rice Football does not pay anywhere near the national average for a coaching budget. It spends $166k for the football recruiting budget which is embarrassingly underfunded. If you don't pay coaches (mainly talking about assistants here), a competitive wage, they won't come coach at your school. If you don't have the funds comparative to other institutions to recruit, you aren't going to be able to recruit quality players.

When the baseball team made its first 2 College World Series, the team's locker room and the coaching offices were in Autry. They used the weight room at the football stadium. Baseball did not have its own trainer. Other than the locker room and the batting cage, there was no designated team meeting space. The "stadium" was largely indistinguishable from what you would see at a high school. Thankfully, no black mold or rats that I noticed and the showers at Autry worked.

I agree that the "spoiled players" narrative can be overplayed. If there are spoiled players on the team (in any sport), it is because the coaching staff recruited spoiled players and/or allowed that attitude to persist on their team. I have no insight into what is currently happening at Rice in any sport.

(10-31-2017 09:42 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  This whole "spoiled" narrative is preposterous. Comparatively speaking, Rice is at a huge disadvantage to other schools, even with the new end zone facility. The atmosphere on campus is hostile from students and faculty, the administration doesn't prioritize football, and the budget for football is absurdly underfunded.

For my last point about the budget for football being underfunded, I would be willing to bet my paycheck that Rice Football does not pay anywhere near the national average for a coaching budget. It spends $166k for the football recruiting budget which is embarrassingly underfunded. If you don't pay coaches (mainly talking about assistants here), a competitive wage, they won't come coach at your school. If you don't have the funds comparative to other institutions to recruit, you aren't going to be able to recruit quality players.

I mean why would you go to a company that doesn't pay as well? The same principle applies to the coaching market. It limits the options.

I think you make some extremely valid points. I have maintained for years that one way Rice can help overcome this gap is to bring former Rice players who are just getting into coaching into the program as grad assistants and assistant coaches. This would have numerous benefits:
(1) If Rice alumni want to pursue football coaching as their profession, it gives them early collegiate experience. College coaching is such an apprenticeship job situation, getting your foot in the door early can be a huge benefit to the former player / prospective coach.
(2) Rice guys are, on average, much smarter than players from other programs. While this may not always have a direct application to real-time situations on the field, I think it helps enormously for coaches.
(3) On average, I think an Rice alum coach is more likely to stay with the program an extra year even if they could get a slight promotion to a better program. Similarly, I think a Rice alum coach might take slightly less to coach at their alma mater.
(4) I think having a number of young, talent assistant coaches coming out of Rice football would help Rice make a name for itself within the football coaching community. Rice would be seen as an attractive entry-level place for talent (assuming you have a talented head coach who knew how to utilize and implement the young coaches). When these guys moved on to coach other, more prominent programs, there would be some trickle-down that could benefit Rice. Particularly true if some of these guys went to the high school ranks after being assistants at Rice.
(5) I think the understanding would have to be that these positions were ideally 2-3 year spots before a new Rice alum coach would come through. But obviously, Rice should seek to retain and internally promote any coach that showed truly outstanding capabilities.

Instead, we have guys like James Casey and Drew Mehringer breaking into the coaching profession elsewhere and quickly pricing themselves out of what Rice could afford. I have been heartened the a couple Rice guys have come in as graduate assistants the past few years (including Jaylon Finner right now). But we need a lot more of them, IMO. (I am not saying the entire staff should be Rice alums, but I think roughly half the coaching staff would be appropriate if there were a sufficient number of former players getting into coaching)

Issues with the old locker rooms - opex issue
New locker rooms - capex issue

Not the same thing.

My comments were not a slam vs those who dealt with the prior locker room as from what i hear was horrendous and really not acceptable, should have never b een that way. But that doesnt change the spoilt and extreme polarization of vip etc in todays world and colleges more than anywhere. Lemme know anything where costs have increased 10x in 35 years?

(10-31-2017 09:46 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(10-31-2017 02:27 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  The real problem is that we prepare them better for careers outside of football than we do for the NFL, and that shows every Saturday.

Maybe I read this the wrong way, but why is this a problem? If by "we" you mean the coaching staff only, then I get it - Bailiff's/ the other coaches' jobs are to prepare players to win on the football field and let the academic support system and alumni network (both non-lettermen and former lettermen) handle the important part of educating the student athletes and preparing them for real world professions, considering only a few of our players each year will even get looks from the NFL, much less have sustainable careers. But if by "we" you mean the university as a whole, then I have to disagree with that being a problem.

The problem is that it is supposed to be a D1 FOOTBALL program, not a student aid program.
As I wrote in my response to V2C2, I feel that the athletes are best viewed as the university's goal to achieve diversity. They dont accept less than the best for the "typical" student, and spend millions to improve the experience for the non-athletes. If they are going to subsidize football , they should do it at a level they will at least not be at the abysmal level it is currently at ( and recruit at a level to achieve at least a modicum of success)