This is expected after the Stanford weekend. Stanford is not that great.


Now we are in similar position about the worst moment of last year. The record is bad, and the expectation is low. However, we could still make noise in any future game. Probably the ncaa post season streak will end this year.

We are quickly playing ourselves into a CUSA tourney or bust position with the losses piling up. We would have to post an 0.800 record the rest of the season to even be discussed for at-large.

Any optimism from the UCF tourney appears to have vanished in the wind...product on the field does not look very compelling at the moment.

Stanford is pretty damn good this year so I disagree with you on that.

But I do agree that this was somewhat expected, or at least not totally surprising.

(03-11-2018 10:30 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Stanford is pretty damn good this year so I disagree with you on that.

14-2. Certainly no slouch so far.

1 loss to Michigan and 1 to Texas (Stanford won both series 3-1)

Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. These players simply aren't as good as the ones that took us regularly to Omaha. You can pick on this mistake or that mistake, but in the end we just don't have the depth of pitching or hitting that we have had in the past. I still think the scholarship difference between us and places like Baylor and TCU means that talent we used to get is now headed there. A lot of good players come from families whose finances simply don't allow the to overlook a $20,000 a year difference. And I don't see a solution. I think focusing on those who qualify for need-based aid is a best work-around, but many of those may not have and the funds to participate as actively and intensely in select ball and get the development that comes with that.

This is a big, and very real, problem. I don't see how you get a Graham equivalent coach to come knowingly into a situation where he will be recruiting with at least one hand tied behind his back. And I don't see how to solve it. Without a solution, I'm afraid our days of baseball domination will be a thing of the past. I just don't see how to get there from here. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports. We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

(03-12-2018 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports . We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

It's bad in baseball; it's even worse for track and field/cross country.

(03-12-2018 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. These players simply aren't as good as the ones that took us regularly to Omaha. You can pick on this mistake or that mistake, but in the end we just don't have the depth of pitching or hitting that we have had in the past. I still think the scholarship difference between us and places like Baylor and TCU means that talent we used to get is now headed there. A lot of good players come from families whose finances simply don't allow the to overlook a $20,000 a year difference. And I don't see a solution. I think focusing on those who qualify for need-based aid is a best work-around, but many of those may not have and the funds to participate as actively and intensely in select ball and get the development that comes with that.

This is a big, and very real, problem. I don't see how you get a Graham equivalent coach to come knowingly into a situation where he will be recruiting with at least one hand tied behind his back. And I don't see how to solve it. Without a solution, I'm afraid our days of baseball domination will be a thing of the past. I just don't see how to get there from here. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports. We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

Vandy

(03-12-2018 06:37 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. These players simply aren't as good as the ones that took us regularly to Omaha. You can pick on this mistake or that mistake, but in the end we just don't have the depth of pitching or hitting that we have had in the past. I still think the scholarship difference between us and places like Baylor and TCU means that talent we used to get is now headed there. A lot of good players come from families whose finances simply don't allow the to overlook a $20,000 a year difference. And I don't see a solution. I think focusing on those who qualify for need-based aid is a best work-around, but many of those may not have and the funds to participate as actively and intensely in select ball and get the development that comes with that.
This is a big, and very real, problem. I don't see how you get a Graham equivalent coach to come knowingly into a situation where he will be recruiting with at least one hand tied behind his back. And I don't see how to solve it. Without a solution, I'm afraid our days of baseball domination will be a thing of the past. I just don't see how to get there from here. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports. We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

Vandy

Vandy has a whole different deal because of some very unique conditions that would not appear to be available to Rice. But I think that Vandy and Stanford, at a minimum, would be useful models for us to understand and implement best practices, where possible. One thing that I find disappointing is that JK has not implemented more of the Stanford model at Rice.

(03-12-2018 06:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:37 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. These players simply aren't as good as the ones that took us regularly to Omaha. You can pick on this mistake or that mistake, but in the end we just don't have the depth of pitching or hitting that we have had in the past. I still think the scholarship difference between us and places like Baylor and TCU means that talent we used to get is now headed there. A lot of good players come from families whose finances simply don't allow the to overlook a $20,000 a year difference. And I don't see a solution. I think focusing on those who qualify for need-based aid is a best work-around, but many of those may not have and the funds to participate as actively and intensely in select ball and get the development that comes with that.
This is a big, and very real, problem. I don't see how you get a Graham equivalent coach to come knowingly into a situation where he will be recruiting with at least one hand tied behind his back. And I don't see how to solve it. Without a solution, I'm afraid our days of baseball domination will be a thing of the past. I just don't see how to get there from here. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports. We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

Vandy

Vandy has a whole different deal because of some very unique conditions that would not appear to be available to Rice. But I think that Vandy and Stanford, at a minimum, would be useful models for us to understand and implement best practices, where possible. One thing that I find disappointing is that JK has not implemented more of the Stanford model at Rice.

The Stanford model is $$$$. The only reason a condition is available at Vandy and not Rice is because they have the will to do it and we don’t. Their entrance requirements are the exact same as ours at this point.

(03-12-2018 07:00 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 06:37 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting. We just don't have the same talent level to which we have become accustomed. These players simply aren't as good as the ones that took us regularly to Omaha. You can pick on this mistake or that mistake, but in the end we just don't have the depth of pitching or hitting that we have had in the past. I still think the scholarship difference between us and places like Baylor and TCU means that talent we used to get is now headed there. A lot of good players come from families whose finances simply don't allow the to overlook a $20,000 a year difference. And I don't see a solution. I think focusing on those who qualify for need-based aid is a best work-around, but many of those may not have and the funds to participate as actively and intensely in select ball and get the development that comes with that.
This is a big, and very real, problem. I don't see how you get a Graham equivalent coach to come knowingly into a situation where he will be recruiting with at least one hand tied behind his back. And I don't see how to solve it. Without a solution, I'm afraid our days of baseball domination will be a thing of the past. I just don't see how to get there from here. Bottom line, this is probably a bigger hindrance to baseball recruiting that anything we face in other sports. We were able to attract top baseball talent despite our academic restrictions, because in baseball the academic non-qualifiers turn pro out of high school. Now we simply can't compete economically for top talent. Yes, a Rice education has great value. But for a family having to scrape together dollars to send their son to university, that value doesn't offset $20,000 a year up front. It just doesn't.

Vandy

Vandy has a whole different deal because of some very unique conditions that would not appear to be available to Rice. But I think that Vandy and Stanford, at a minimum, would be useful models for us to understand and implement best practices, where possible. One thing that I find disappointing is that JK has not implemented more of the Stanford model at Rice.

The Stanford model is $$$$. The only reason a condition is available at Vandy and not Rice is because they have the will to do it and we don’t. Their entrance requirements are the exact same as ours at this point.

Not exactly. Someone, I think it was WRC, laid out the specifics earlier. The way I understand it, you can't combine an athletic scholarship with need-based scholarship money. You can combine it with a merit-based scholarship, but that merit-based money has to be awarded on the same basis for athletes and non-athletes. Because the academic levels of our athletes is significantly below that of the student body as a whole, we supposedly can't do that.

With respect to the merit scholarship angle, Stanford can do it because their stated policy is that anybody with a family income of $125,000 or less can attend free. They can offer that deal to baseball players (and other partial scholarship athletes) on the same basis as non-athletes. Yes, money is what enables them to do that. Maybe we could do the same. I'm not sure how close we could get to that.

I'm not sure how Vandy does it. Yes, they get big bucks from the SEC, but NCAA rules wont let them spend that money for the purpose of addressing this specific problem. I know they historically sent a lot of their athletes to George Peabody teachers' college, whose students were allowed to play for Vandy because Peabody did not field sports teams, but now that Peabody and Vandy have merged, I'm not sure how that works any more.

I'm really not sure how to craft a solution for Rice, but trying to find that solution certainly deserves some significant effort.

Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.

I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.

Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.

It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.

Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.

What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

(03-12-2018 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.

It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.

Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.

What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

I don’t think a 1200 gets you merit aid at TCU. But that’s not even the point... as you’re describing above Stanford is giving need based aid which is exactly what Rice can do (and does). If Vandy is giving merit aid by major then we can do that too. The sports management program at Rice is probably equivalent to the education program at Vandy. Make scholarships for kids who specifically want to go into sports management and athletes will get them. So if we’ve debunked this scholarship difference then why have we slipped so much?

(03-12-2018 08:29 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.
It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.
Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.
What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

I don’t think a 1200 gets you merit aid at TCU. But that’s not even the point... as you’re describing above Stanford is giving need based aid which is exactly what Rice can do (and does). If Vandy is giving merit aid by major then we can do that too. The sports management program at Rice is probably equivalent to the education program at Vandy. Make scholarships for kids who specifically want to go into sports management and athletes will get them. So if we’ve debunked this scholarship difference then why have we slipped so much?

Because we don’t have those major specific major scholarships now. So we haven’t debunked anything yet. Perhaps we could, but we haven’t. Baylor and TCU apparently have those major-based scholarships which is how they do it. I do know of specific baseball players who have ended up at TCU or Baylor rather than Rice because the $20,000 differential was too great for their families to handle.

And as far as the heed based aid, if both parents are working, you may not qualify for much.

(03-11-2018 09:50 PM)junrice Wrote:  This is expected after the Stanford weekend. Stanford is not that great.


Now we are in similar position about the worst moment of last year. The record is bad, and the expectation is low. However, we could still make noise in any future game. Probably the ncaa post season streak will end this year.

Stanford is not that great? Do define great then as the Cardinal are concensus Top 5 in the country right now, and ranked as high as #3 in a couple polls.

No question we are playing poorly right now, and on offense the bottom half of our lineup (with DiCaprio and Dunlap out) is absolutely killing us, but Gonzaga is a pretty solid club. Quality offense up and down their lineup, and exceptional defensively.

(03-12-2018 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:29 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.
It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.
Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.
What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

I don’t think a 1200 gets you merit aid at TCU. But that’s not even the point... as you’re describing above Stanford is giving need based aid which is exactly what Rice can do (and does). If Vandy is giving merit aid by major then we can do that too. The sports management program at Rice is probably equivalent to the education program at Vandy. Make scholarships for kids who specifically want to go into sports management and athletes will get them. So if we’ve debunked this scholarship difference then why have we slipped so much?

Because we don’t have those major specific major scholarships now. So we haven’t debunked anything yet. Perhaps we could, but we haven’t. Baylor and TCU apparently have those major-based scholarships which is how they do it. I do know of specific baseball players who have ended up at TCU or Baylor rather than Rice because the $20,000 differential was too great for their families to handle.

And as far as the heed based aid, if both parents are working, you may not qualify for much.

Ok... but it’s because we choose not to do it. Not because they’re doing something we can’t do.

(03-12-2018 08:47 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:29 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.
It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.
Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.
What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

I don’t think a 1200 gets you merit aid at TCU. But that’s not even the point... as you’re describing above Stanford is giving need based aid which is exactly what Rice can do (and does). If Vandy is giving merit aid by major then we can do that too. The sports management program at Rice is probably equivalent to the education program at Vandy. Make scholarships for kids who specifically want to go into sports management and athletes will get them. So if we’ve debunked this scholarship difference then why have we slipped so much?

Because we don’t have those major specific major scholarships now. So we haven’t debunked anything yet. Perhaps we could, but we haven’t. Baylor and TCU apparently have those major-based scholarships which is how they do it. I do know of specific baseball players who have ended up at TCU or Baylor rather than Rice because the $20,000 differential was too great for their families to handle.
And as far as the heed based aid, if both parents are working, you may not qualify for much.

Ok... but it’s because we choose not to do it. Not because they’re doing something we can’t do.

But that choice is not Graham’s—or Karlsgaard’s—to make. It’s an academic decision, not an athletic decision. I think Pope is making the best of the situation, but we simply may not be able to attract the same level of talent as in past.

Aside from the scholarship/tuition/recruiting issue the other concern is the lack of improvement in the players during their eligibility. The continuing display of poor baseball fundamentals and mental mistakes isn’t a function of the amount of aid they receive. Even if we aren’t getting the same level of players we once did Iwould still expect to see them play better as they move towards graduation.

(03-12-2018 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:36 AM)Owl1998 Wrote:  Reading that Vandy, TCU, and Stanford have ways to circumvent the system but those "ways" aren't available to Rice is going to make my head explode. It's simply false and it's really getting old. Again, for the upteenth time, it is illegal to combine academic money and athletic money. Rice does the same thing other expensive schools with high academic standards. The need based $ is what almost all of the baseball players are on. Just like at Vandy and just like at Stanford. The difference is that the level of "get after it" in recruiting (facilities, willingness to travel, relatability to kids, etc) has suffered. That was why I was very encouraged when Pope took the recruiting reins and immediately secured multiple commits within a short time period.
I am speaking from experience with more than one of the 2019 commits. They will tell you that Pope was the deal closer.
Any BS "disadvantage" argument is simply an uninformed excuse.

They don't circumvent the system, they follow the system precisely.

It is illegal to combine NEED-BASED academic money with athletic money. Apparently, it is not illegal to combine MERIT-BASED academic money with athletic money, as long as athletes qualify on the same basis as non-athletes. This gives places like TCU and Baylor, where the academic gap between athletes and non-athletes is not so great as at Rice, the ability to combine a partial athletic scholarship with merit-based money. A baseball player with a 1200 SAT can get a merit scholarship at TCU or Baylor, but not at Rice when that is well below the average SAT. At Rice, our athletes generally don't qualify for merit-based aid in competition with our non-athlete students. Therefore the choice is between partial athletic aid with no merit aid or need-based academic aid with no athletic aid.

Presumably, Stanford and Vandy and Duke have the same problem as Rice. Stanford can handle it by saying that nobody with a family income under $125K pays, both athlete and non-athlete alike. Vandy used to handle it by sending athletes to Peabody, where they competed in a less highly qualified academic pool (my junior high English teacher had attended Peabody, in classes with half the Vandy football team), but since Vandy and Peabody merged a few decades ago, I'm not sure how that works now.

What I understand that Pope is doing is concentrating on prospects whose family finances qualify them for essentially a full ride under the need-based formula (basically a variant of what Stanford can do). This may be the best way forward for Rice baseball. I'm not sure how need-based academic scholarships count against the athletic scholarship limitation formula.

I find it very hard to believe that there are more than a small handful of TCU/Baylor players that are so qualified academically that they are deserving of merit scholarships. Unless their players are smarter than ours, which, given that it seems every year at least one of our players has academic integrity issues, may not be that farfetched.

(03-12-2018 08:46 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-11-2018 09:50 PM)junrice Wrote:  This is expected after the Stanford weekend. Stanford is not that great.


Now we are in similar position about the worst moment of last year. The record is bad, and the expectation is low. However, we could still make noise in any future game. Probably the ncaa post season streak will end this year.

Stanford is not that great? Do define great then as the Cardinal are concensus Top 5 in the country right now, and ranked as high as #3 in a couple polls.

No question we are playing poorly right now, and on offense the bottom half of our lineup (with DiCaprio and Dunlap out) is absolutely killing us, but Gonzaga is a pretty solid club. Quality offense up and down their lineup, and exceptional defensively.

Keep moving those goalposts ...