Everyone get excited, including me. However, A good coach ONLY will not save the program, need more support from the school.

How about lower the academy standard for recruiting, that is something could get better players immediately.

Nope

Unlike bigger schools, we don't have enough 100 level classes and 'part-time students' to keep guys like that eligible.

We need to cast a vastly wider, not deeper net. Spend MORE money recruiting STUDENT athletes... and not be cheap and spend less recruiting student ATHLETES.

The idea is to get better athletes with solid academics. I think the University should understand (because THEY have done it) that this means being more broad.. and again, we're ultimately recruiting STUDENTS.

When we hit the point where we are maximizing the guys we have and the only reason we can't get better is because of talent, then this conversation is understandable. (Still disagree, but the conversation has merit).

So far, Rice has 2 and 3 star guys who execute like half star guys. Dropping standards and getting a few 4 stars doesn't help us if they also execute like half stars. The better strategy and the one in line with the educational mission of Rice is to get those 2 and 3 star guys to play like 3 and 4 star guys. Like Navy does.

The problem isn't and has not been the caliber of talent for a long long time.

Lowering our standards is a non-starter. Having a good football team that is also a constant source of embarrassment off the field is an awful look, and wouldn't help the overall mission of the university.

As the 2013 team demonstrated, we can get NFL-caliber talent to Rice without lowering the bar academically.

I wonder if anybody in the athletic department tracks on-field success and classroom success at Rice as a function of high school grades and test scores.

Any initiative to lower standards needs a better justification than somebody thinks it seems like it ought to maybe help.

Every recruit that ekes in is a slot that’s not available to a higher-scoring kid. How many Travis Bradshaws have chosen to take an FCS scholarship, or to walk on at UT, or to not play in college at all? Regardless of conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t be shocked if the history suggests Rice increase entrance requirements.

I’d be more open to simplifying the process than to lowering standards.

(11-28-2017 01:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nope
Unlike bigger schools, we don't have enough 100 level classes and 'part-time students' to keep guys like that eligible.
We need to cast a vastly wider, not deeper net. Spend MORE money recruiting STUDENT athletes... and not be cheap and spend less recruiting student ATHLETES.
The idea is to get better athletes with solid academics. I think the University should understand (because THEY have done it) that this means being more broad.. and again, we're ultimately recruiting STUDENTS.

IIRC, you got end at about the tail end of our experiment with lower standards. It was exactly the tradeoff you describe, cut money and spend less to recruit athletes instead of student athletes. How did it work?

They flunked out. They raped coeds. They did drugs. And they managed to win 2, 1, 5 (anomaly), 4, (another anomaly), 0, 1, and 1 games in 7 seasons, or an average of 2 per year.

If anybody wants that, fine, let them. I don't.

I'm in favor of having the same standards as Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, etc. The same -- not lower, but also certainly not higher ... not one iota higher. Whatever standards those schools are maintaining, it is not hurting their rankings and that's the neighborhood we want to keep living in.

So yeah, IF our standards are currently higher than the above-mentioned, then lowering them would seem to me to actually be a no-brainer rather than a non-starter.

But anyway, the problem is none of us really knows what our "standards" are or what those of any much less all of the above peer schools are. So true comparisons and recommendations are not really possible. We've had anecdotal reports here over the years that we've rejected players that the above schools have admitted. If so, that's infuriating and ridiculous. But is that still the regime today, who knows. Someone mentioned recently here that there is a defined number of "exceptions" (I think it was 8?) that the football staff can have and/or that they can appeal rejections to a "committee" at the other end of campus, which sounds to me in line with things I have heard over the years about Notre Dame's process, so while I don't give Rice the blind benefit of doubt very often, I tend to believe that we're probably more or less in line with our peers already.

By the way, speaking of anecdotes, I went to a public high school of about 2000 kids in downstate Illinois that certainly would have "ranked," academically, in the lower half of schools in the state and maybe even in the bottom third or quarter. We had honors classes, but no AP classes, and there was never more than one section of any honors class in any subject. No ACT/SAT prep classes, no robotics club, nothing of that ilk. So basically all my honors classes were with the same 25 kids, plus or minus, out of a total class of 500. One player from my senior year got a football scholarship to Northwestern and another got one at the Air Force Academy. Neither was ever in any of my classes, not a single one. So no one should be under any illusion that our peers are maintaining super high standards that we need to keep up with.

Here's another anecdote. The new U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois was just sworn in. He was recruited to and did play football at Harvard in the '90s. He was quoted in a bio piece in the Chicago Tribune as saying that he got an 1100 on his SATs. Again, whatever is good enough for Harvard, Northwestern, etc., should be good enough for us.

(11-28-2017 02:46 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  I'm in favor of having the same standards as Stanford, Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, etc. The same -- not lower, but also certainly not higher ... not one iota higher. Whatever standards those schools are maintaining, it is not hurting their rankings and that's the neighborhood we want to keep living in.

So yeah, IF our standards are currently higher than the above-mentioned, then lowering them would seem to me to actually be a no-brainer rather than a non-starter.

But anyway, the problem is none of us really knows what our "standards" are or what those of any much less all of the above peer schools are. So true comparisons and recommendations are not really possible. We've had anecdotal reports here over the years that we've rejected players that the above schools have admitted. If so, that's infuriating and ridiculous. But is that still the regime today, who knows. Someone mentioned recently here that there is a defined number of "exceptions" (I think it was 8?) that the football staff can have and/or that they can appeal rejections to a "committee" at the other end of campus, which sounds to me in line with things I have heard over the years about Notre Dame's process, so while I don't give Rice the blind benefit of doubt very often, I tend to believe that we're probably more or less in line with our peers already.

By the way, speaking of anecdotes, I went to a public high school of about 2000 kids in downstate Illinois that certainly would have "ranked," academically, in the lower half of schools in the state and maybe even in the bottom third or quarter. We had honors classes, but no AP classes, and there was never more than one section of any honors class in any subject. No ACT/SAT prep classes, no robotics club, nothing of that ilk. So basically all my honors classes were with the same 25 kids, plus or minus, out of a total class of 500. One player from my senior year got a football scholarship to Northwestern and another got one at the Air Force Academy. Neither was ever in any of my classes, not a single one. So no one should be under any illusion that our peers are maintaining super high standards that we need to keep up with.

Here's another anecdote. The new U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois was just sworn in. He was recruited to and did play football at Harvard in the '90s. He was quoted in a bio piece in the Chicago Tribune as saying that he got an 1100 on his SATs. Again, whatever is good enough for Harvard, Northwestern, etc., should be good enough for us.

It shouldn’t be terribly hard to determine whether our student-athletes at the lower end of the admissions spectrum have been successful on and off the field. If they have been, then we should move the bar downward. If not, then we should move the bar upward. I’d rather do than than try to chase whatever we think other schools are doing.

Yes, there have been anecdotes of Rice rejecting recruits that went to those other schools. There have also been anecdotes of those other schools rejecting recruits that went to Rice.

One of my HS classmates got a scholarship to Rice. He was not in any of my honors classes. I did not know him, but from what I heard he was not particularly bright. I had other classmates who were better students, and who went on to play for Big 12 schools, but were not even contacted by Rice.

I don’t understand the relevance of your last anecdote. Rice has had many recruits well under 1100 (2-part).

(11-28-2017 02:01 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I wonder if anybody in the athletic department tracks on-field success and classroom success at Rice as a function of high school grades and test scores.

Any initiative to lower standards needs a better justification than somebody thinks it seems like it ought to maybe help.

Every recruit that ekes in is a slot that’s not available to a higher-scoring kid. How many Travis Bradshaws have chosen to take an FCS scholarship, or to walk on at UT, or to not play in college at all? Regardless of conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t be shocked if the history suggests Rice increase entrance requirements.

I’d be more open to simplifying the process than to lowering standards.

The bold actually crossed my mind.

I think if we invested in national recruiting, we could probably find more 2+ star players who scored 1000+ and not have to dip academically for the same caliber student.

I didn't say it because there is probably not much of a correlation between 50-100 points on SAT and kids who have the intensity to succeed academically vs those who skate by because they're athletes.... but i think the point is valid.

Not player by player.... but I think we could RAISE our measures (not standards, but 'yield') with the same or better athletes if we recruited nationally. Coaches could spend more time coaching kids and less time with tutors. Tutors are important, don't get me wrong... but guys who don't need as much tutoring can practice more

(11-28-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IIRC, you got end at about the tail end of our experiment with lower standards. It was exactly the tradeoff you describe, cut money and spend less to recruit athletes instead of student athletes. How did it work?

As you probably know, I walked on at Rice. I was on the wait list and Alborn was the speaker at my football banquet. I asked if he could put in a good word for me. He said his word would do more harm than good on campus.

Back to the original title of this thread...why calm down? This rampant speculation regarding the new coach is the most fun I've had with Rice football for several years.

I think a 1000 SAT would be around the minimum it would take to be successful at Rice. Also class rank and quality of high school need to be taken into consideration. There should be better coordination of admission and athletic staff than Hambone experienced.

The times we lowered standards too much are when we had athletes that did not stay very long and were trouble when they were here.

quote='Hambone10' pid='14834209' dateline='1511908370']

(11-28-2017 02:01 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  I wonder if anybody in the athletic department tracks on-field success and classroom success at Rice as a function of high school grades and test scores.

Any initiative to lower standards needs a better justification than somebody thinks it seems like it ought to maybe help.

Every recruit that ekes in is a slot that’s not available to a higher-scoring kid. How many Travis Bradshaws have chosen to take an FCS scholarship, or to walk on at UT, or to not play in college at all? Regardless of conventional wisdom, I wouldn’t be shocked if the history suggests Rice increase entrance requirements.

I’d be more open to simplifying the process than to lowering standards.

The bold actually crossed my mind.

I think if we invested in national recruiting, we could probably find more 2+ star players who scored 1000+ and not have to dip academically for the same caliber student.

I didn't say it because there is probably not much of a correlation between 50-100 points on SAT and kids who have the intensity to succeed academically vs those who skate by because they're athletes.... but i think the point is valid.

Not player by player.... but I think we could RAISE our measures (not standards, but 'yield') with the same or better athletes if we recruited nationally. Coaches could spend more time coaching kids and less time with tutors. Tutors are important, don't get me wrong... but guys who don't need as much tutoring can practice more

(11-28-2017 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  IIRC, you got end at about the tail end of our experiment with lower standards. It was exactly the tradeoff you describe, cut money and spend less to recruit athletes instead of student athletes. How did it work?

As you probably know, I walked on at Rice. I was on the wait list and Alborn was the speaker at my football banquet. I asked if he could put in a good word for me. He said his word would do more harm than good on campus.
[/quote]