CSNbbs

"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

I'm 100% fine with this. I think it's what makes us unique. Sure, you can 'tailor' that message to say something he isn't saying (that we wouldn't recruit a guy good enough to get drafted after his freshman year in basketball) but that we hope/expect that he will get his degree and then do something with the remaining 30+ years of his life after sports.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Nothing controversial here. The type of "student"-athlete who only sees college as a springboard to the pros (e.g. one-and-dones in basketball) are not what Rice is after anyway. Having players go on to play in the pros is great, but the sterling graduation rates are more important.

Taken on its own, I have no problem with it. But in the context of Rice Athletics, where we have been told for decades that we have to choose between on-field success and off-field success and we can't have both, I can't help but read that either-or mindset between the lines.

I would love for Rice to become a "feeder to the major pro sports teams," as long as the athletes also have a legitimate academic program.

The people I want to bring to Rice are the likes of Morris Almond, Ryan Berry, Jarett Dillard and Scott Solomon, who did aspire to pro sports careers AND had the academic chops to succeed if pro sports don't work out.

Chron story about proposed college athletics changes, with Leebron quotes (somehow released form behind the paywall):

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/c...8ee07c6#/0

Leebron Q&A:

http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2014/...21535101=0

It is important to note that less than 2% of college athletes go pro in any sport except baseball, where it is a whopping 11.6%.

Even Alabama, arguably the most prolific football program of the past 5+ years only has about 20% of their players make the NFL.

If you're going to college to make it to the pros, you don't belong in College


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Quote:"I have a cousin in California who is being recruited, and he tells me all the things he's being offered and, wow, it's a lot more than what I get," Porter said. "The UT (basketball) team gets personal massages. That's one thing we would love to have. But Rice is so small, and there are limitations. We say, well, we can get those things after we graduate with a degree from Rice."

This is fantastic.

(03-16-2014 01:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]It is important to note that less than 2% of college athletes go pro in any sport except baseball, where it is a whopping 11.6%.

Even Alabama, arguably the most prolific football program of the past 5+ years only has about 20% of their players make the NFL.

If you're going to college to make it to the pros, you don't belong in College


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It's worth noting that until a baseball player reaches the bigs, pro ~= rich

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Despite aspects of Leebron's tenure at Rice that I have some trouble with, I do think Leebron is generally a very strategic--to the point of being calculating--thinker. With that in mind, I wonder what Leebron's angle is with respect to the college athletics landscape. He is a president of one of the have-nots in college athletics, though, as reflected in the Chronicle stories, he seems squarely in favor of new measures that will primarily help the haves in college athletics. Is that not counterintuitive?

But perhaps Leebron realizes that we will never approach the level of the UTs and Alabamas and Florida States of the world, which, in turn, makes him feel less threatened by them. Contrast this to Mack Rhodes's comments in the articles, which evince almost a defensiveness when he keeps stressing how UH will provide anything that UT will provide. The AD protests too much. But UH is trying to play with the big boys, where I see in Leebron's comments a very clear signal that we are not.

And with respect to being calculating, I wonder if Leebron's thinking is that the truly elite programs will get what's theirs, no matter what. The new measures that Leebron seems to support will probably put little to no strain on schools like Georgia or Oklahoma or Texas. They will put a lot of strain on the Iowas and West Virginias and the Kentuckys and the Texas Techs and the UHs. In other words, I think of the 130 or so FBS schools as being divided into (1) the truly elite, quasi-professional programs, comprising about 30 schools, (2) the truly bottom programs, comprising about 40 schools (including Rice), and (3) the vast middle majority that want to keep up as much as possible with Group (1). My guess is that the new measures throw a monkey wrench in the operations of Group (3). And to the extent the new measures cause some discord or fracturing and bellyaching in Group (3), and perhaps even some revolt against Group (1), maybe Leebron sees this as benefiting Rice.

Maybe the thinking is, if you're at the bottom of society, anything that upsets the status quo--even revolution--can't do anything but help.

Is this what's going on in Leebron's head, and is this why he's firmly in support of the changes?

Of course Rice is going to emphasize careers/achievement beyond pro sports, but there is nothing wrong with pursuing a pro sports career and the school's/athletic department's stance should clearly reflect that. Someone athletically talented enough to play a Big 3 sport professionally should absolutely pursue it as the $ returns can be significant and presumably it's a very enjoyable career that can only be pursued during a certain window in one's life. If completion of a degree program has to be delayed for a very promising pro career, that's OK, just as long as it's not disregarded.

Basically what Gravy said.

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

This is the reason I'm so proud to call myself a Rice fan. Rice has it's priorities in order.

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

naïve in this day and age. in in all sports, men and women. I've been a fan 50 years, this statement is revealing as it can be !

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

I fail to see how dropping to the lowest level is in keeping with the desire to bring people to Rice who aspire to compete at the highest level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

Not a viable option. It's simply not on the table.

Whether you would support or oppose such a move is irrelevant. It has as much chance of happening as the Astros have of winning the 2011 World Series.

That's what McKinsey said.

(03-18-2014 10:56 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

I fail to see how dropping to the lowest level is in keeping with the desire to bring people to Rice who aspire to compete at the highest level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also fail to see how our continued trajectory of SWC->MWC->CUSA->NewSunBelt is is in keeping with this desire either.

Leebron's statement reflects a D3 mentality and his later quotes about how athletics will have to fund their own increased investments indicate that's a path we have little intention of avoiding.

(03-18-2014 11:20 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2014 10:56 PM)RiceDoc Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-16-2014 07:29 AM)Viejobuho Wrote: [ -> ]"...We want to bring people to Rice who want to compete at the highest level, but their ambition is to be an engineer or doctor. My ambition is not to be a feeder to the major pro sports teams. We will have some. But that does not define our program's success."--- President Leebron in today's Houston Chronicle

Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

I fail to see how dropping to the lowest level is in keeping with the desire to bring people to Rice who aspire to compete at the highest level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also fail to see how our continued trajectory of SWC->MWC->CUSA->NewSunBelt is is in keeping with this desire either.

Leebron's statement reflects a D3 mentality and his later quotes about how athletics will have to fund their own increased investments indicate that's a path we have little intention of avoiding.

That's not really the impression I get from the statement. Would prefer him to have added to "We will have some" something like "and we take pride in them" or something to that effect.

(03-18-2014 11:20 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]I also fail to see how our continued trajectory of SWC->MWC->CUSA->NewSunBelt is is in keeping with this desire either.

Leebron's statement reflects a D3 mentality and his later quotes about how athletics will have to fund their own increased investments indicate that's a path we have little intention of avoiding.

I tend to agree.

I found Leebron's quotes more of the type of "it's not our fault that we continue on this downhill spiral ... everyone else is doing it wrong." Similar to the "we're not going to wear a sandwich board" mentality.

Furthermore ... Leebron's refusal to comment on whether we would offer athletes the full cost of attendance should that regulatory change take place - with Mack Rhodes falling all over himself that UH would - again reflects that no sandwich board mentality. The "Rice Way".

There are arguments to be made whether he is or is not philosophically correct, but in arguing against an ESU paying a football coach $5 million ... that ship has long ago sailed.

Let's put it this way ... Leebron's comments were in no way consistent with a school that has a 10-year, TCU-like plan to end up in a BCS league.

(03-18-2014 11:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2014 08:46 PM)HatchetMan Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. We need to move to D3 and play the Ivy League.

Not a viable option. It's simply not on the table.

It also results in spending even LESS on all of our other sports, contrary to the common thought by those who have this opinion. All of the revenue and outreach and alumni interaction go away, but 90% of the cost of competition (including scholarships of a sort) remain... plus an even greater decrease in the academic caliber of competition or a massive increase in the cost of travel.

(03-18-2014 11:20 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]I also fail to see how our continued trajectory of SWC->MWC->CUSA->NewSunBelt is is in keeping with this desire either.

Agreed, but when you don't control those decisions... there isn't much you can do about them. TCUs plan hasn't worked for Boise and only worked for TCU because of Texas' greediness and exceptionally lucky timing.

(03-18-2014 11:20 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]Leebron's statement reflects a D3 mentality and his later quotes about how athletics will have to fund their own increased investments indicate that's a path we have little intention of avoiding.

While I get your point and agree in general that it is a different mentality, I disagree that it is a path we don't intend to avoid.

Yes, we may be a bit Quixotic in our means, but that is entirely consistent with Kennedy's speech about why Rice plays Texas.

There is a way to do this and the hiring of people like Dr K (as opposed to someone from the Ivy League) shows that we intend to find a way to do it. You must understand that this is a Board of Trustees, and not a Board of Directors. Their job is to protect the endowment... PERIOD. They hire people to do jobs, but they will not tell them HOW to do those jobs.

(03-19-2014 08:37 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Let's put it this way ... Leebron's comments were in no way consistent with a school that has a 10-year, TCU-like plan to end up in a BCS league.

They also weren't inconsistent with it. There is no way for the board to imagine what College Football will look like in 10 or 30 years and it would probably be against their fiduciary responsibility to make the sort of claims that we would all like for them to make... So they make much more nuanced ones... I mean, if college sports go to a place where they basically 'buy' semi-pro, developmental franchises and they don't have to attend class whatsoever... I suspect we won't be in that league... and those decisions are being made by 200 other Presidents and ADs and not only ours.

I'm not merely asking you (collectively) to 'give them a chance'... but I am asking you to look at things from a different perspective.

The Trustee's job is to protect the endowment. Certainly we won't expect them to risk the endowment for sports... because I believe they are personally liable if they violate their fiduciary responsibility... even if they aren't, they are certainly open to scrutiny.

However, there are all sorts of ways that Dr K could come up with a plan and 'sell' it to the board that would do all of the things that we want to have done and NOT risk the endowment. Dr K's job ISN"T to protect the endowment. All he needs to do is to submit a plan that accomplishes our goals and doesn't ask the board to violate their fiduciary trust.

For lack of a better description... I'm basically saying that it isn't the Board's job to succeed at sports... and it isn't Leebron's job to sell it. I understand that at some Universities, their President DOES do that... but then again, those are most often schools where academics (on the whole) are far less highly regarded than their athletics. That is not us.

I think that part of Dr K's (and his staff) job is to deliver a plan that gets us to where we want to go, while providing the President and board with 'cover' to their primary functions of delivering education.

The President and board are telling us that they will do their jobs in delivering education and protecting the endowment... and Dr K will tell us how he plans on delivering quality athletics within those auspices.

Rice Athletics should have no trouble funding itself, provided that the University is convinced that the goals of protecting the endowment and high quality education are secure. I believe our greatest failure in the past has been in 'selling' that commitment.

(03-19-2014 08:37 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-18-2014 11:20 PM)At Ease Wrote: [ -> ]I also fail to see how our continued trajectory of SWC->MWC->CUSA->NewSunBelt is is in keeping with this desire either.

Leebron's statement reflects a D3 mentality and his later quotes about how athletics will have to fund their own increased investments indicate that's a path we have little intention of avoiding.

I tend to agree.

I found Leebron's quotes more of the type of "it's not our fault that we continue on this downhill spiral ... everyone else is doing it wrong." Similar to the "we're not going to wear a sandwich board" mentality.

Furthermore ... Leebron's refusal to comment on whether we would offer athletes the full cost of attendance should that regulatory change take place - with Mack Rhodes falling all over himself that UH would - again reflects that no sandwich board mentality. The "Rice Way".

There are arguments to be made whether he is or is not philosophically correct, but in arguing against an ESU paying a football coach $5 million ... that ship has long ago sailed.

Let's put it this way ... Leebron's comments were in no way consistent with a school that has a 10-year, TCU-like plan to end up in a BCS league.

I don't read it that way at all. He's saying that Rice is going to bring in great athletes who also aspire to be great after their athletic careers are over. I would never expect to hear a Rice president say anything different. We already know that Leebron is pro-athletics.