(12-28-2014 10:03 PM)wrysal Wrote:  To your first point, a '63 bowl would have been 3 out of 4, as the '62 team went 2-6-2, I think (including a 14-14 tie versus No. 1 ut).

The other tie was 6-6 with LSU. LSU and UT met in the Cotton Bowl classic after that season.

(12-28-2014 06:08 PM)FBChE Wrote:  I think that our troubles began when Pitzer was brought in to convert Rice from a well respected Regional Academic Institution to an Elite national university. I suspect that something had to give, and it was the no tuition policy and the athletic program expenses.

It was a lot more than just that. There has been a huge change in both professional football and college football since the 1950's when Rice was in a position of national stature in the sport.

Players are bigger, stronger and faster.
There is a lot more money at stake.
TV was in its infancy, and the number of people who actually watched a college football game on TV was minute compared to audiences today.
Star players had time to pursue degrees in mathematics and engineering, and were not discouraged from doing so.
Pro football players made significantly less money than they do today, and almost all of them had second, off-season jobs to pay the rent.
Virtually none of the schools in the south had integrated. Comparing the level of play then to what it is now, is like comparing major league baseball today to 100 years ago. The talent pool competing is drawing from a much larger available population.

Teams skirted the rules even back then (OU got in trouble under Bud Wilkinson, IIRC), but I doubt teams had players who couldn't read, as both Oklahoma State and TCU did in the 1980's.

Our 'approach' to athletics has been a problem, as Owl69/70/75 has frequently noted. However, it would've been difficult to keep up in the 1970's and 1980's, given the environment, without significant compromise even if the administration had been more supportive.

I tend to think that things are a little better now, but that's probably mostly due to the fact that the 'haves', the P5s, have already essentially won the game. They have their guaranteed paydays, and any need to cheat is probably limited to the level of ego that the alumni supporting a program have with regard to their football team's performance.

(12-28-2014 10:03 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 06:08 PM)FBChE Wrote:  There are two points that I would like to make.
1. This could be the second time that Rice has gone to three consecutive bowls, had the 1963 squad not turned down the Sun Bowl.
2. Bailiff has done a good job. Is he a Nick Saban? NO. But he "gets" Rice, which is a rare quality among football coaches. Graham also seems to "Get" Rice, and he has done a marvelous job with baseball. Football would be harder to turn around than baseball, but can be done, witness Baylor. Bailiff is turning it around. It is not quick, but it is steady. It is ongoing. My only problem with him is that he seems to be excessively loyal to both his coaches and his players, and does not take actions when necessary.

With Dr. K there to run interference for him, I would hope to see faster progress in the future.

A question that I have is how did we get in this mess in the first place. Rice was a major program at one time. I recently saw a 1939 Oklahoma Yearbook touting the fact that they were able to beat Rice 7-6, indicating that Rice was a power at that time.

I think that our troubles began when Pitzer was brought in to convert Rice from a well respected Regional Academic Institution to an Elite national university. I suspect that something had to give, and it was the no tuition policy and the athletic program expenses.

We are doing well and getting better. Lets tweak what needs to be improved, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To your first point, a '63 bowl would have been 3 out of 4, as the '62 team went 2-6-2, I think (including a 14-14 tie versus No. 1 ut).

As to why we are where we are, Owl 69 has explained it many times. It was obvious the higher-ups weren't trying in the late-70s when I played, and that went on for decades.

I wasn't alive then, but I've always heard that it was the Gator Bowl that we turned down — not the Sun Bowl.

(12-28-2014 11:32 PM)Latenite Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 10:03 PM)wrysal Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 06:08 PM)FBChE Wrote:  There are two points that I would like to make.
1. This could be the second time that Rice has gone to three consecutive bowls, had the 1963 squad not turned down the Sun Bowl.
2. Bailiff has done a good job. Is he a Nick Saban? NO. But he "gets" Rice, which is a rare quality among football coaches. Graham also seems to "Get" Rice, and he has done a marvelous job with baseball. Football would be harder to turn around than baseball, but can be done, witness Baylor. Bailiff is turning it around. It is not quick, but it is steady. It is ongoing. My only problem with him is that he seems to be excessively loyal to both his coaches and his players, and does not take actions when necessary.

With Dr. K there to run interference for him, I would hope to see faster progress in the future.

A question that I have is how did we get in this mess in the first place. Rice was a major program at one time. I recently saw a 1939 Oklahoma Yearbook touting the fact that they were able to beat Rice 7-6, indicating that Rice was a power at that time.

I think that our troubles began when Pitzer was brought in to convert Rice from a well respected Regional Academic Institution to an Elite national university. I suspect that something had to give, and it was the no tuition policy and the athletic program expenses.

We are doing well and getting better. Lets tweak what needs to be improved, but not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To your first point, a '63 bowl would have been 3 out of 4, as the '62 team went 2-6-2, I think (including a 14-14 tie versus No. 1 ut).

As to why we are where we are, Owl 69 has explained it many times. It was obvious the higher-ups weren't trying in the late-70s when I played, and that went on for decades.

I wasn't alive then, but I've always heard that it was the Gator Bowl that we turned down — not the Sun Bowl.

I was alive then, and a student. I heard the Sun Bowl

(12-28-2014 10:23 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Our 'approach' to athletics has been a problem, as Owl69/70/75 has frequently noted. However, it would've been difficult to keep up in the 1970's and 1980's, given the environment, without significant compromise even if the administration had been more supportive.

Stanford is the only "academic" school that actually kept up throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Having first John Ralston and then Bill Walsh along with what was even then a pretty good sized athletic endowment helped. Oddly enough, when Pitzer left Rice he went to Stanford and presided over their making the commitment that we didn't. That tends to argue against laying the blame for Rice's problems solely on Pitzer.

Duke had hits and misses with basketball, as did Vandy to a lesser extent, while Northwestern was pretty much non-competitive across the board in the Big-10. Vandy and Northwestern were probably always safe as the only private schools to give their leagues some due process shelter. Duke probably had just enough hits, and the ACC has been primarily a basketball league.

I think the Bo Hagan hiring was the turning point. When Neely retired, Rice was an attractive enough job that we had genuine interest from Tommy Prothro (coach of #2 UCLA, but wanted to get out from under John Wooden's shadow) and Ray Graves (coach of Florida). What are the chances that if Bailiff left we would get interest from the head coaches at UCLA and Florida? I think Bo was hired off Neely's staff because he was believed to be compliant enough to go along with whatever the administration dictated, including the demise of athletics altogether, whereas Prothro or Graves would have pushed for a Stanford-like approach.

I'm not sure how Graves would have worked. At Florida, he always impressed me as a guy who could recruit the best talent in the country and coach them to a 6-4 record, and I don't know how well that would have worked at Rice. He would probably have opened up the African-American recruiting effort early on (there are indications that his interest in leaving Florida was that he wanted to do that but the SEC wasn't ready for it). If he had been able to tap into the Florida African-American talent pipeline that ended up fueling programs like Miami in the 1980s, added to the Texas base, the results could have been pretty amazing.

Prothro was kind of Todd Graham lite. He never lasted very long anywhere because people grew tired of his arrogance. Prothro would have put Rice at the forefront of recruiting African-American athletes (he had established a recruiting pipeline out of the Golden Triangle to UCLA, and would have been very well placed to milk that at Rice). I would have expected him to last 2-3 years, during which time the African-American connection would have become very well established and probably put Rice on a talent par with the upper half of the SWC. If he left on that schedule, the timing would have been perfect to replace him with a up-and-coming young coach who had done great things at McMurry and Angelo State, Grant Teaff.

Under either Graves or Prothro, I would have expected players like Jack Mildren, Joe Wylie, and the Selmons to have ended up at Rice instead of OU (and those specific individuals are listed because of very specific reasons). Either way, the last 50 years would have been vastly different.

(12-29-2014 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 10:23 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Our 'approach' to athletics has been a problem, as Owl69/70/75 has frequently noted. However, it would've been difficult to keep up in the 1970's and 1980's, given the environment, without significant compromise even if the administration had been more supportive.

Stanford is the only "academic" school that actually kept up throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Having first John Ralston and then Bill Walsh along with what was even then a pretty good sized athletic endowment helped. Oddly enough, when Pitzer left Rice he went to Stanford and presided over their making the commitment that we didn't. That tends to argue against laying the blame for Rice's problems solely on Pitzer.

Duke had hits and misses with basketball, as did Vandy to a lesser extent, while Northwestern was pretty much non-competitive across the board in the Big-10. Vandy and Northwestern were probably always safe as the only private schools to give their leagues some due process shelter. Duke probably had just enough hits, and the ACC has been primarily a basketball league.

I think the Bo Hagan hiring was the turning point. When Neely retired, Rice was an attractive enough job that we had genuine interest from Tommy Prothro (coach of #2 UCLA, but wanted to get out from under John Wooden's shadow) and Ray Graves (coach of Florida). What are the chances that if Bailiff left we would get interest from the head coaches at UCLA and Florida? I think Bo was hired off Neely's staff because he was believed to be compliant enough to go along with whatever the administration dictated, including the demise of athletics altogether, whereas Prothro or Graves would have pushed for a Stanford-like approach.

I'm not sure how Graves would have worked. At Florida, he always impressed me as a guy who could recruit the best talent in the country and coach them to a 6-4 record, and I don't know how well that would have worked at Rice. He would probably have opened up the African-American recruiting effort early on (there are indications that his interest in leaving Florida was that he wanted to do that but the SEC wasn't ready for it). If he had been able to tap into the Florida African-American talent pipeline that ended up fueling programs like Miami in the 1980s, added to the Texas base, the results could have been pretty amazing.

Prothro was kind of Todd Graham lite. He never lasted very long anywhere because people grew tired of his arrogance. Prothro would have put Rice at the forefront of recruiting African-American athletes (he had established a recruiting pipeline out of the Golden Triangle to UCLA, and would have been very well placed to milk that at Rice). I would have expected him to last 2-3 years, during which time the African-American connection would have become very well established and probably put Rice on a talent par with the upper half of the SWC. If he left on that schedule, the timing would have been perfect to replace him with a up-and-coming young coach who had done great things at McMurry and Angelo State, Grant Teaff.

Under either Graves or Prothro, I would have expected players like Jack Mildren, Joe Wylie, and the Selmons to have ended up at Rice instead of OU (and those specific individuals are listed because of very specific reasons). Either way, the last 50 years would have been vastly different.

You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.

Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

Excellent discussion. I always was wondering the same thing what happen. I was always curious where did all the money go when Rice was a football powerhouse. I know it is not like now but when the stadium was sold out with > 70K in the stands, they much have brought in a huge amount money for those times.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

(12-28-2014 10:23 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Our 'approach' to athletics has been a problem, as Owl69/70/75 has frequently noted. However, it would've been difficult to keep up in the 1970's and 1980's, given the environment, without significant compromise even if the administration had been more supportive.

We'll never know for sure what Rice's ceiling was at that time, but my take is that Rice did just about everything wrong and still had several good SWC-caliber players most years.

(12-29-2014 12:03 PM)75src Wrote:  I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.

Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

(12-29-2014 04:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 12:03 PM)75src Wrote:  I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.
Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

Florida State had a pretty good run under Peterson before he came to Rice. But he still thought Rice was a step up from Florida State in 1971. That alone should give a pretty good idea of how far we have fallen.

FSU slid back a little after Peterson left, and was definitely back in the second tier when Bowden got there. How did he elevate them? By recruiting and coaching obviously--but also by being willing to play anybody, anywhere, any time--and beating a bunch of them on the road. Any lessons there?

(12-29-2014 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 04:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 12:03 PM)75src Wrote:  I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.
Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 11:21 AM)07owl Wrote:  You should write a full alternate history of Rice football. I'd read it

No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

Florida State had a pretty good run under Peterson before he came to Rice. But he still thought Rice was a step up from Florida State in 1971. That alone should give a pretty good idea of how far we have fallen.

FSU slid back a little after Peterson left, and was definitely back in the second tier when Bowden got there. How did he elevate them? By recruiting and coaching obviously--but also by being willing to play anybody, anywhere, any time--and beating a bunch of them on the road. Any lessons there?

Wasn't FSU still an independent back then?

(12-29-2014 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 04:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 12:03 PM)75src Wrote:  I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.
Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

(12-29-2014 11:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, thanks. I spent 40 years living with the path we took. Dreaming about the path not taken is fun, but spending enough time with it to write a book would probably prove way too frustrating.

Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

Florida State had a pretty good run under Peterson before he came to Rice. But he still thought Rice was a step up from Florida State in 1971. That alone should give a pretty good idea of how far we have fallen.

FSU slid back a little after Peterson left, and was definitely back in the second tier when Bowden got there. How did he elevate them? By recruiting and coaching obviously--but also by being willing to play anybody, anywhere, any time--and beating a bunch of them on the road. Any lessons there?

Wasn't FSU still an independent back then?

Yeah, they were independent until '91. They were also elevated as a result of being willing to recruit players that were willing to break the law against anybody, anywhere, any time.

(12-29-2014 05:10 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 04:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 12:03 PM)75src Wrote:  I like the history of Rice football before about 50 years ago with SWC championships and Cotton Bowl wins. It is a shame that I just caught the very end of it all.
Even after the Hagan disaster, we were still important enough to lure Peterson away from Florida State, but the Oilers lured him away after a year.

Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

Florida State had a pretty good run under Peterson before he came to Rice. But he still thought Rice was a step up from Florida State in 1971. That alone should give a pretty good idea of how far we have fallen.

FSU slid back a little after Peterson left, and was definitely back in the second tier when Bowden got there. How did he elevate them? By recruiting and coaching obviously--but also by being willing to play anybody, anywhere, any time--and beating a bunch of them on the road. Any lessons there?

Wasn't FSU still an independent back then?

Yeah, they were independent until '91. They were also elevated as a result of being willing to recruit players that were willing to break the law against anybody, anywhere, any time.

Actually, that's a very unfair shot. It may be true of FSU's roster the past 3 - 4 years, but during the Bobby Bowden prime years (1977 - 2000), he ran a very clean program and was known for recruiting truly quality student-athletes (e.g., Ward, Dunn).

(12-29-2014 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Actually, that's a very unfair shot. It may be true of FSU's roster the past 3 - 4 years, but during the Bobby Bowden prime years (1977 - 2000), he ran a very clean program and was known for recruiting truly quality student-athletes (e.g., Ward, Dunn).

Charlie Ward is a rare individual. In addition to being a standout student, my understanding is that he was drafted in three professional sports.

(12-29-2014 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:10 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:06 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 05:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 04:57 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Florida State was a nothing until Bobby Bowden arrived in the early 1970s, and the program burst into national prominence in the late 1970s with signature win after signature win.

Florida State had a pretty good run under Peterson before he came to Rice. But he still thought Rice was a step up from Florida State in 1971. That alone should give a pretty good idea of how far we have fallen.

FSU slid back a little after Peterson left, and was definitely back in the second tier when Bowden got there. How did he elevate them? By recruiting and coaching obviously--but also by being willing to play anybody, anywhere, any time--and beating a bunch of them on the road. Any lessons there?

Wasn't FSU still an independent back then?

Yeah, they were independent until '91. They were also elevated as a result of being willing to recruit players that were willing to break the law against anybody, anywhere, any time.

Actually, that's a very unfair shot. It may be true of FSU's roster the past 3 - 4 years, but during the Bobby Bowden prime years (1977 - 2000), he ran a very clean program and was known for recruiting truly quality student-athletes (e.g., Ward, Dunn).

I guess you can give FSU credit for getting rid of Moss but he was recruited there by Bowden who tried to keep him around after multiple issues. The system in place in Tallahassee isn't something that appears in 3-4 years

I wish I could be his headset boy.

(12-29-2014 03:33 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 10:23 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Our 'approach' to athletics has been a problem, as Owl69/70/75 has frequently noted. However, it would've been difficult to keep up in the 1970's and 1980's, given the environment, without significant compromise even if the administration had been more supportive.

We'll never know for sure what Rice's ceiling was at that time, but my take is that Rice did just about everything wrong and still had several good SWC-caliber players most years.

Makes you wonder just how good we could have been had we done things right.

And we didn't do "just about" everything wrong. We did ABSOLUTELY everything wrong. Plus we went out of our way to dream up things to do wrong that nobody else had ever thought of.

Now that things are finally being done right in the athletics department, it only magnifies more how poorly things were done for the past 40years. I mean, it's like Rice really didn't care anything about athletics, and the people in charge didn't even care that it showed. What's happening now is nothing short of amazing. I never thought I'd see the day that so much investment is being made.