(05-23-2016 10:02 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  By the way we have a new basketball S&C coach as well. The old one ended up at Missouri as an Assistant AD of something according to Twitter.

Where was this announcement?

(05-23-2016 11:15 AM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:02 AM)cr11owl Wrote:  By the way we have a new basketball S&C coach as well. The old one ended up at Missouri as an Assistant AD of something according to Twitter.

Where was this announcement?

Not sure it was announced but he's been here for a little over 2 months. The old S&C coach was announced at Missouri last week on Twitter.

Thanks!

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  "I'm curious: could these situations also be characterized as:
- Instead of going to a function highly encouraged of all students, you go to a workout instead.
- S&C coach not willing to make reasonable accommodations to students whose class schedules conflict with workouts.
- S&C coach insulting faculty."

1. Most of those functions are complete BS anyways. I skipped many to go to football functions instead or even to watch film on my own. That's the kind of player you want at Rice.

No doubt many students feel that way, but surely it's reasonable to suggest that skipping special events which are expected of all students is not always a good idea.

Heck, some classes are not very productive -- but sometimes it's important to go so that the professor will see you there.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  2. ...Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about.

For Pete's sake, I just asked a question: could the situation be characterized the other way? You seem to certain that the answer is "no", which is fine -- but I'm not sure why one would object to the question.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  3. Maybe the faculty deserved it.

Maybe, and maybe not. It seems that neither of us really knows, and as you said, "Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about."

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  It's like people on here are too smart for their own good, crunch numbers, then come to a conclusion that is unassailable. That's not how the football world works.

Huh?

(05-23-2016 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  "I'm curious: could these situations also be characterized as:
- Instead of going to a function highly encouraged of all students, you go to a workout instead.
- S&C coach not willing to make reasonable accommodations to students whose class schedules conflict with workouts.
- S&C coach insulting faculty."

1. Most of those functions are complete BS anyways. I skipped many to go to football functions instead or even to watch film on my own. That's the kind of player you want at Rice.

No doubt many students feel that way, but surely it's reasonable to suggest that skipping special events which are expected of all students is not always a good idea.

Heck, some classes are not very productive -- but sometimes it's important to go so that the professor will see you there.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  2. ...Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about.

For Pete's sake, I just asked a question: could the situation be characterized the other way? You seem to certain that the answer is "no", which is fine -- but I'm not sure why one would object to the question.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  3. Maybe the faculty deserved it.

Maybe, and maybe not. It seems that neither of us really knows, and as you said, "Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about."

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  It's like people on here are too smart for their own good, crunch numbers, then come to a conclusion that is unassailable. That's not how the football world works.

Huh?

If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it. I never went to O-Week my first year at Rice because it was more important to be in two-a-days.

Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not. Obviously, something you don't know.

And I actually do know something about it. It came from a very reliable source that Yox was in the right, but because of the PC culture pervasive in academics, bye bye Yox.

Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. All that really matters is that Rice Football, and the athletic department in general, does not get the support necessary from the BOT, President, and academic side of the University, to facilitate long term, sustained success.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  "I'm curious: could these situations also be characterized as:
- Instead of going to a function highly encouraged of all students, you go to a workout instead.
- S&C coach not willing to make reasonable accommodations to students whose class schedules conflict with workouts.
- S&C coach insulting faculty."

1. Most of those functions are complete BS anyways. I skipped many to go to football functions instead or even to watch film on my own. That's the kind of player you want at Rice.
2. S&C make UNREAL accommodations. Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about.
3. Maybe the faculty deserved it. I could totally see some faculty on campus making an off-handed comment that was demeaning to football/S&C. Of course I would expect someone to fire back.

Anyone else sick on this board for people making excuses for the academic side of campus? It's ridiculous. They need to get behind the athletic program. Otherwise, there will be no progress made. And those of you saying the coaching staff is overpaid or at least not underpaid, good luck getting rid of those guys and getting anyone their quality or better to come and stick around for at least two years.

It's like people on here are too smart for their own good, crunch numbers, then come to a conclusion that is unassailable. That's not how the football world works.

I've been there just as you have, and for the first 15 or so years after I graduated, I was right where you are.

Since then I have come to the conclusion that there are certain things that we just aren't going to do (as a University). So what we need to do is find a better sales pitch... hence my comments about how broadening our recruiting gives us better students and exposure, whether or not it gives us better athletes... because the University IS interested in better students.

Trustees are 'paid' to say no. Their greater risk exists in change, not in status quo... even if status quo is on the decline. Their safest decisions are to do just as others have done, despite the differences. To hire consultants to tell them what to do and to do it.

The problem is that there are no other schools remotely like us.... at least that are 'succeeding' where we aren't.

We don't have Stanford's location or pots of money all around us. We don't have UH's (or anyone else's) population. And for some reason, we can't reach the Medical center in a meaningful way.

It's why I've often suggested things that nobody else does... because we aren't going to REALLY succeed any other way.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  "I'm curious: could these situations also be characterized as:
- Instead of going to a function highly encouraged of all students, you go to a workout instead.
- S&C coach not willing to make reasonable accommodations to students whose class schedules conflict with workouts.
- S&C coach insulting faculty."

1. Most of those functions are complete BS anyways. I skipped many to go to football functions instead or even to watch film on my own. That's the kind of player you want at Rice.

No doubt many students feel that way, but surely it's reasonable to suggest that skipping special events which are expected of all students is not always a good idea.

Heck, some classes are not very productive -- but sometimes it's important to go so that the professor will see you there.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  2. ...Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about.

For Pete's sake, I just asked a question: could the situation be characterized the other way? You seem to certain that the answer is "no", which is fine -- but I'm not sure why one would object to the question.

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  3. Maybe the faculty deserved it.

Maybe, and maybe not. It seems that neither of us really knows, and as you said, "Don't speak on things you know absolutely nothing about."

(05-23-2016 09:51 AM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  It's like people on here are too smart for their own good, crunch numbers, then come to a conclusion that is unassailable. That's not how the football world works.

Huh?

If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it. I never went to O-Week my first year at Rice because it was more important to be in two-a-days.

Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not. Obviously, something you don't know.

And I actually do know something about it. It came from a very reliable source that Yox was in the right, but because of the PC culture pervasive in academics, bye bye Yox.

Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. All that really matters is that Rice Football, and the athletic department in general, does not get the support necessary from the BOT, President, and academic side of the University, to facilitate long term, sustained success.

I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

(05-23-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

No...I never went to one O-Week activity. I never lived on campus. When I transferred in, they gave me the option of living on or off. Same with "O-Week", I had already been there a semester and thought it'd be a waste of time for what I was trying to accomplish.

And I'm just saying if there is a "conflict", we should want players that pick the athletic commitment over whatever else extra is going on. Academic conflicts are accommodated and are perfectly understandable.

Yeah, I would agree that their is no correlation between athletic achievement and general involvement in student body activities. For example, Christian Covington was one of the more involved football players on campus.

I think RiceOwl53's experience is slightly different as he came as a transfer student from a junior college and was expected to contribute immediately rather than being at Rice for four or five years.

(05-23-2016 03:16 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  Yeah, I would agree that their is no correlation between athletic achievement and general involvement in student body activities. For example, Christian Covington was one of the more involved football players on campus.

I think RiceOwl53's experience is slightly different as he came as a transfer student from a junior college and was expected to contribute immediately rather than being at Rice for four or five years.

Yeah. Cov is a great example. Of course, football was a priority. But I can name various others who were more about the student body activities or other cultural aspects of Rice than they were about football. However, they didn't ever really contribute being buried on depth chart or even left the team.

(05-23-2016 03:13 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

No...I never went to one O-Week activity. I never lived on campus. When I transferred in, they gave me the option of living on or off. Same with "O-Week", I had already been there a semester and thought it'd be a waste of time for what I was trying to accomplish.

And I'm just saying if there is a "conflict", we should want players that pick the athletic commitment over whatever else extra is going on. Academic conflicts are accommodated and are perfectly understandable.

I forgot that you transferred into Rice and did not start here as a freshmen.

I do remember other transfers being involved with O-week for football and baseball in particular though, so I'm assuming that your circumstance was the exception rather than the norm for transfers.

You're right that if there is a true conflict (e.g. position meeting, practice, etc) we shouldn't be surprised, and we should expect/encourage an athlete to choose the sport related activity over non-sport related activity. However, this shouldn't be a carte blanche to turn everything into a sport commitment (e.g. optional work outs that can be rescheduled) that trumps all other Rice-related activities. One of the best ways to engage the student body and actually try and get them to go to games and become invested in the sports teams, so that they don't treat them as activities that don't take precedent, is to engage them and form meaningful bonds. I would have gone to football games regardless of whether or not I was friends with people on the team, but I know there were plenty of students who attended a handful of games because of that personal relationship.

It's a fine line to toe.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

(05-23-2016 03:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

It's pervasive throughout this whole forum. If you don't know that, I don't know where you are in the fall months.

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:13 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

No...I never went to one O-Week activity. I never lived on campus. When I transferred in, they gave me the option of living on or off. Same with "O-Week", I had already been there a semester and thought it'd be a waste of time for what I was trying to accomplish.

And I'm just saying if there is a "conflict", we should want players that pick the athletic commitment over whatever else extra is going on. Academic conflicts are accommodated and are perfectly understandable.

I forgot that you transferred into Rice and did not start here as a freshmen.

I do remember other transfers being involved with O-week for football and baseball in particular though, so I'm assuming that your circumstance was the exception rather than the norm for transfers.

You're right that if there is a true conflict (e.g. position meeting, practice, etc) we shouldn't be surprised, and we should expect/encourage an athlete to choose the sport related activity over non-sport related activity. However, this shouldn't be a carte blanche to turn everything into a sport commitment (e.g. optional work outs that can be rescheduled) that trumps all other Rice-related activities. One of the best ways to engage the student body and actually try and get them to go to games and become invested in the sports teams, so that they don't treat them as activities that don't take precedent, is to engage them and form meaningful bonds. I would have gone to football games regardless of whether or not I was friends with people on the team, but I know there were plenty of students who attended a handful of games because of that personal relationship.

It's a fine line to toe.

Except most of those "optional work outs" aren't really optional. hahahaha

(05-23-2016 03:31 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:13 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

No...I never went to one O-Week activity. I never lived on campus. When I transferred in, they gave me the option of living on or off. Same with "O-Week", I had already been there a semester and thought it'd be a waste of time for what I was trying to accomplish.

And I'm just saying if there is a "conflict", we should want players that pick the athletic commitment over whatever else extra is going on. Academic conflicts are accommodated and are perfectly understandable.

I forgot that you transferred into Rice and did not start here as a freshmen.

I do remember other transfers being involved with O-week for football and baseball in particular though, so I'm assuming that your circumstance was the exception rather than the norm for transfers.

You're right that if there is a true conflict (e.g. position meeting, practice, etc) we shouldn't be surprised, and we should expect/encourage an athlete to choose the sport related activity over non-sport related activity. However, this shouldn't be a carte blanche to turn everything into a sport commitment (e.g. optional work outs that can be rescheduled) that trumps all other Rice-related activities. One of the best ways to engage the student body and actually try and get them to go to games and become invested in the sports teams, so that they don't treat them as activities that don't take precedent, is to engage them and form meaningful bonds. I would have gone to football games regardless of whether or not I was friends with people on the team, but I know there were plenty of students who attended a handful of games because of that personal relationship.

It's a fine line to toe.

Except most of those "optional work outs" aren't really optional. hahahaha

So I have no direct experience with how those are run in football, but with other sports, a lot of those work outs were optional in the sense of when you completed them, not if you did - hence the reschedule comment.

Was that not the case?

A football player's main priority after staying eligible to play should be completing the activities required to perform at a high level. However, since this is a university and not a developmental/minor league, there inherently has to be some give and take between the university and the athletic department with regards to how an athlete uses their time. It's hard to gauge just how much give and take there is based on your comments between the two with regards to which activities take a front seat and how much an athlete's personal decisions influences which one wins out.

(05-23-2016 03:37 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:31 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:24 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:13 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm assuming you meant you didn't participate in all of the O-week activities, not that you never went. Having advised all three years I could while at Rice, and having advised a few football players and a number of other athletes, while some conflicts arose due to the practice schedule, there were plenty of events that were either mandatory or did not directly conflict with practice schedules, that the athletes in my groups attended.

Sometimes there were events that took place later in the evening and some of the athletes didn't attend those because had practice early in the morning and wanted/needed rest, but the decision to not attend was a personal decision. And I say personal because there were football players that participated in those events and others that didn't. And thinking of one particular incident, if I think of how the careers turned out of those who attended vs those that didn't, I would say there was no correlation between attending some of these events and not attending them.

So, long story short, there are definitely instances where students athletes must skip some big, university-wide events because of sport obligations. The university should try their best to avoid that since the student athletes are working their butts off to represent Rice. But there are also plenty of events where student athletes willfully segregated themselves away from the student body for personal reasons, not sport duties. The big question is when there were "conflicts" how real were they and how easy was it to accommodate all responsibilities?

No...I never went to one O-Week activity. I never lived on campus. When I transferred in, they gave me the option of living on or off. Same with "O-Week", I had already been there a semester and thought it'd be a waste of time for what I was trying to accomplish.

And I'm just saying if there is a "conflict", we should want players that pick the athletic commitment over whatever else extra is going on. Academic conflicts are accommodated and are perfectly understandable.

I forgot that you transferred into Rice and did not start here as a freshmen.

I do remember other transfers being involved with O-week for football and baseball in particular though, so I'm assuming that your circumstance was the exception rather than the norm for transfers.

You're right that if there is a true conflict (e.g. position meeting, practice, etc) we shouldn't be surprised, and we should expect/encourage an athlete to choose the sport related activity over non-sport related activity. However, this shouldn't be a carte blanche to turn everything into a sport commitment (e.g. optional work outs that can be rescheduled) that trumps all other Rice-related activities. One of the best ways to engage the student body and actually try and get them to go to games and become invested in the sports teams, so that they don't treat them as activities that don't take precedent, is to engage them and form meaningful bonds. I would have gone to football games regardless of whether or not I was friends with people on the team, but I know there were plenty of students who attended a handful of games because of that personal relationship.

It's a fine line to toe.

Except most of those "optional work outs" aren't really optional. hahahaha

So I have no direct experience with how those are run in football, but with other sports, a lot of those work outs were optional in the sense of when you completed them, not if you did - hence the reschedule comment.

Was that not the case?

A football player's main priority after staying eligible to play should be completing the activities required to perform at a high level. However, since this is a university and not a developmental/minor league, there inherently has to be some give and take between the university and the athletic department with regards to how an athlete uses their time. It's hard to gauge just how much give and take there is based on your comments between the two with regards to which activities take a front seat and how much an athlete's personal decisions influences which one wins out.

Yeah, it was more of a joke. Most of the time if "optional" or "not mandatory" are used in any major sport setting, you better be there.

But like you say, you might have 8 workouts to complete over a two week period, you can figure out when to go to the certain times. Which is more directly in line with your comment.

Of course accommodations are made...

but sometimes they can't be and athletes have to make a choice...

the guy paying your bills/funding your scholarship usually wins... and athletes are LONG since accustomed to sacrificing 'fun' activities for workouts.

(05-23-2016 03:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

I agree with RiceOwl53 on this. Here you are dissecting every word and/or opinion from this thread. All of the implications he pointed out are true. Just let it go, and learn from it.

(05-23-2016 04:49 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

I agree with RiceOwl53 on this. Here you are dissecting every word and/or opinion from this thread. All of the implications he pointed out are true. Just let it go, and learn from it.

Well, RiceOwl53 and I are not exactly disagreeing -- or at least it's not clear that we are, because it's not entirely clear what he is saying. I asked a sincere question: could the situation be characterized in a particular way? That doesn't imply anything; it just asks a question. If anyone is "dissecting every word" (though inaccurately), it is RiceOwl53, who claimed that I implied things I didn't imply.

I agree that it would be better for RiceOwl53 and others to let it go and learn from it, and I'm not sure why they have chosen not to do so.

(05-23-2016 05:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 04:49 PM)tramile12 Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 03:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  If it is in conflict with something for the football program and you can't get in academic trouble for skipping, I'd say skip it.

If that was the coach's thinking as well, he may well have had difficulty. Surely there are some things which one "can't get in academic trouble for" but which it is still unwise to skip.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Taking the full quote you would see that you implied the S&C staff does not make accommodations for athletes with conflicting academic schedules. They do, but you were implying they did not.

No I wasn't. I didn't imply anything -- I just asked if the alternative characterization was reasonable. I didn't know if it was or not.

(05-23-2016 02:20 PM)RiceOwl53 Wrote:  Finally, people seem to only want their side of the story. They somehow know the football world better than those who have lived it. Some random poll numbers, rankings, etc. make them a superior critic that cannot be wrong. .

Again, huh? Who on this thread has taken that position?

I agree with RiceOwl53 on this. Here you are dissecting every word and/or opinion from this thread. All of the implications he pointed out are true. Just let it go, and learn from it.

Well, RiceOwl53 and I are not exactly disagreeing -- or at least it's not clear that we are, because it's not entirely clear what he is saying. I asked a sincere question: could the situation be characterized in a particular way? That doesn't imply anything; it just asks a question. If anyone is "dissecting every word" (though inaccurately), it is RiceOwl53, who claimed that I implied things I didn't imply.

I agree that it would be better for RiceOwl53 and others to let it go and learn from it, and I'm not sure why they have chosen not to do so.

Well, I'm pretty clear on what he's saying. As usual, the administrative types got their panties in a wad about something. And as usual, the athletic representative involved is fired. Probably for doing his job and speaking the truth. Baylor can have their coaches knowingly recruit rapists and nothing happens to them, and one of our guys looks sideways at a higher up, causing some type of an affront, and he's gone.

it would just be nice if Athletics received some REAL support from these "politicians". Not just the politically correct golf clap.

And no, I'm not advocating recruiting rapists so please lets not start that thread. Honestly though, can we get something more along the lines of middle ground at Rice?