I think Rice should look at the top assistants in the country’s top programs, much as they did with Coach Bloomgren. There is an excellent choice at Virginia - Assistant Head Coach and Recruiting coordinator Kevin McMullan. 15 years building one of the top programs, 11 as Assistant Head Coach. Focus on Defensive excellence along with a great pitching coach. I like Pope as pitching coach but is he ready to run a program after two years at the college level? Definitely seems to be an asset but I would go with more college experience as Skipper. Bring Berkman in as another Assistant coach on the offensive side and you’d have a pretty strong staff imho. http://www.virginiasports.com/sports/m-b...vin00.html

Not setting up Pearce to to succeed OG has been the worst mistake of the Wayne Graham era. He was done five years ago, but no one has had the guts to tell him.

(02-26-2018 12:43 PM)CanadianOwl Wrote:  Not setting up Pearce to to succeed OG has been the worst mistake of the Wayne Graham era. He was done five years ago, but no one has had the guts to tell him.

I can give you 3 years ago, but 5 is a bit too far. 2013: Super Regional, 2014: Regional Host and RPI in top 15 (#13 I believe). That doesn't really say done IMO.

(02-26-2018 12:24 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see why we don't bring in a coach-elect, give Wayne a one year farewell tour, test drive the new guy to make sure it will work, and then make Wayne associate AD for life. I don't understand why it isn't already done. I would be fine doing that with Pope for this year, but it should have already been communicated publicly.

Another thing. Do we still have the problem vis-a-vis the likes of Baylor and TCU with the cost differential due to the way scholarships are supplemented there? Has that been solved in any way? Can it be? Because I'm not sure Tony LaRussa could win big here unless and until it is.

No, it has not been solved in any way. However, what Pope has done this past year, to great success, is aggressively pursue highly regarded players who meet our academic standards and qualify for hardship scholarships.

Rice has 5 sports (football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and women's tennis) that are full scholarship sports. With every other sport, Rice is at a huge disadvantage versus every other school because of the expense involved in attending on a partial scholarship. Only those sports with a helpful demographic (men's tennis, baseball, swimming, volleyball, and cross-country) have a remote chance to compete, and even with those, athletes often have to turn down more lucrative offers in order to come to Rice. Only track and field is screwed by all of those factors.

I will just say this about Wayne's future. About 10 days ago, the wife and I attended the AD's "Mid-Season Report", where Joe answered some questions in front of some Owl Club donors (had to hit a certain level to be invited) about a variety of topics. Of course, baseball and Wayne's situation came up. And, of course, Joe did not discuss the contract, mainly talking about acknowledging the decline from the "glory years" (and mentioning how amazingly great they were) and reviewing ideas as to how to improve the program to keep up with the other major programs in this state and nationwide.

When we left, I asked the wife what she thought of Joe's avoidance of the topic. She said to me, well, I think he made his point. I asked, what do you mean? She gathered from how Joe talked that Wayne is gone at the end of the year (barring some unforeseen run to the CWS, I would think). After she said that, I thought about it some more and could see why she felt that way. Other than mentioning the obvious in terms of Wayne's accomplishments, Joe didn't really mention him much at all in terms of the future of the program. If it were so set Wayne was getting another year, Joe could have either mentioned that or alluded to it. But, as I said, Wayne and the near future weren't really tied together

Now, this is just our reading between the lines of Joe's comments. Obviously, we could be misinterpreting Joe's comments (or he could not have meant to pass along that vibe), but this is what we got out of it.

(02-26-2018 01:01 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:24 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see why we don't bring in a coach-elect, give Wayne a one year farewell tour, test drive the new guy to make sure it will work, and then make Wayne associate AD for life. I don't understand why it isn't already done. I would be fine doing that with Pope for this year, but it should have already been communicated publicly.

Another thing. Do we still have the problem vis-a-vis the likes of Baylor and TCU with the cost differential due to the way scholarships are supplemented there? Has that been solved in any way? Can it be? Because I'm not sure Tony LaRussa could win big here unless and until it is.

No, it has not been solved in any way. However, what Pope has done this past year, to great success, is aggressively pursue highly regarded players who meet our academic standards and qualify for hardship scholarships.

Rice has 5 sports (football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and women's tennis) that are full scholarship sports. With every other sport, Rice is at a huge disadvantage versus every other school because of the expense involved in attending on a partial scholarship. Only those sports with a helpful demographic (men's tennis, baseball, swimming, volleyball, and cross-country) have a remote chance to compete, and even with those, athletes often have to turn down more lucrative offers in order to come to Rice. Only track and field is screwed by all of those factors.

I’m struggling to see why we aren’t better at Golf.

More than any sport, that’s the head scratcher for me.

A track record of success at the collegiate level is a prerequisite in my opinion. I will concede that Coach Graham had only Junior College level experience prior to joining Rice, although his experience there was so incredibly successful that he was an exception to the rule. I wouldn't want a step-up candidate, like a pitching coach or an assistant who has never been a head coach at the collegiate level. Riser fits the profile of someone I'd want to get. I'd like to see 1) Texas roots; 2) Demonstrated track record of success as a head coach at the collegiate level; 3) Bonus points if they've dealt with high academic standards; 4) a motivator and persuasive person.

(02-26-2018 01:01 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:24 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see why we don't bring in a coach-elect, give Wayne a one year farewell tour, test drive the new guy to make sure it will work, and then make Wayne associate AD for life. I don't understand why it isn't already done. I would be fine doing that with Pope for this year, but it should have already been communicated publicly.

Another thing. Do we still have the problem vis-a-vis the likes of Baylor and TCU with the cost differential due to the way scholarships are supplemented there? Has that been solved in any way? Can it be? Because I'm not sure Tony LaRussa could win big here unless and until it is.

No, it has not been solved in any way. However, what Pope has done this past year, to great success, is aggressively pursue highly regarded players who meet our academic standards and qualify for hardship scholarships.

Rice has 5 sports (football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and women's tennis) that are full scholarship sports. With every other sport, Rice is at a huge disadvantage versus every other school because of the expense involved in attending on a partial scholarship. Only those sports with a helpful demographic (men's tennis, baseball, swimming, volleyball, and cross-country) have a remote chance to compete, and even with those, athletes often have to turn down more lucrative offers in order to come to Rice. Only track and field is screwed by all of those factors.

I know you're saying the 5 sports that are full scholarship are the sports where the student-athletes get a 100 percent scholarship, but there are plenty of kids on all of those teams that are walk-ons (and some end up being big contributors).

If a sport at Rice is utilizing the maximum scholarships that the NCAA allows, to me it's fully funded. Yes, there are programs and sports where schools skirt the rules to get more kids on academic scholarships (TCU in baseball as an example), but I think there is a big issue with lumping the rest of the Rice sports together in one group. That's terribly unfair to men's track and field (and I'm guessing men's tennis is somewhat in that same boat?) because as I understand it, they are nowhere near the maximum scholarships that the NCAA allows.

Women's soccer, swimming and track and field, and men's golf are not at that much of a disadvantage to other schools outside of our conference affiliation. There are plenty of schools that do fine in the partial scholarship sports that are as or even more expensive than Rice. For instance, Stanford won the women's soccer NCAA title last fall. USC has numerous NCAA titles and top 5 finishes in various partial scholarship sports (including track and field). Vanderbilt is another good example. Even some Ivy League schools in certain sports (most are ones we probably don't compete in) are other good examples.

Unless these schools are using the academic loophole that we've seen in baseball, I think conference affiliation is the #1 criteria and not scholarship amount. You can't put the other 5 sports on a pedestal and say they should be successful but there are excuses the other ones can't succeed.

(02-26-2018 12:42 PM)johncatworth Wrote:  I think Rice should look at the top assistants in the country’s top programs, much as they did with Coach Bloomgren. There is an excellent choice at Virginia - Assistant Head Coach and Recruiting coordinator Kevin McMullan. 15 years building one of the top programs, 11 as Assistant Head Coach. Focus on Defensive excellence along with a great pitching coach. I like Pope as pitching coach but is he ready to run a program after two years at the college level? Definitely seems to be an asset but I would go with more college experience as Skipper. Bring Berkman in as another Assistant coach on the offensive side and you’d have a pretty strong staff imho. http://www.virginiasports.com/sports/m-b...vin00.html

And a damned expensive staff. Not sure we can pony up the cash for that trifecta.

Wayne is THE reason Rice has D1 athletics at all. Based on that he deserves to go out on terms that he is happy with.

Seems to me an appropriate solution is to bring in the heir apparent as AHC for next year, give Wayne a farewell tour, and then make him associate AD emeritus. If Wayne is okay with that.

I really think we owe him better than he is getting.

(02-26-2018 01:36 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  A track record of success at the collegiate level is a prerequisite in my opinion. I will concede that Coach Graham had only Junior College level experience prior to joining Rice, although his experience there was so incredibly successful that he was an exception to the rule. I wouldn't want a step-up candidate, like a pitching coach or an assistant who has never been a head coach at the collegiate level. Riser fits the profile of someone I'd want to get. I'd like to see 1) Texas roots; 2) Demonstrated track record of success as a head coach at the collegiate level; 3) Bonus points if they've dealt with high academic standards; 4) a motivator and persuasive person.

In business and the military, there is a huge difference between being a #2 and being the head guy. They require different skill sets. Many fabulous #2s are horrible #1s. I would bet it is the same at coaching. Therefore, unless an incredibly gifted and unusual were to come along, I think you go with someone with HC experience.

(02-26-2018 02:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:42 PM)johncatworth Wrote:  I think Rice should look at the top assistants in the country’s top programs, much as they did with Coach Bloomgren. There is an excellent choice at Virginia - Assistant Head Coach and Recruiting coordinator Kevin McMullan. 15 years building one of the top programs, 11 as Assistant Head Coach. Focus on Defensive excellence along with a great pitching coach. I like Pope as pitching coach but is he ready to run a program after two years at the college level? Definitely seems to be an asset but I would go with more college experience as Skipper. Bring Berkman in as another Assistant coach on the offensive side and you’d have a pretty strong staff imho. http://www.virginiasports.com/sports/m-b...vin00.html

And a damned expensive staff. Not sure we can pony up the cash for that trifecta.

Baseball is different than football. For the latter, there was no way we were going to attract a name head coach, regardless to whether we could or would cough up the money. Rice Baseball continues to be a VERY attractive job. We don't have the money to buy away a head coach from a Top 25 program, but we sure as heck have the money to do so for a proven, successful head coach at a non P-5 school (e.g., DBU, SELA, SHS).

(02-26-2018 03:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wayne is THE reason Rice had D1 athletics at all. Based on that he deserves to go out on terms that he is happy with.

Seems to me an appropriate solution is to bring in the heir apparent as AHC for next year, give Wayne a farewell tour, and then make him associate AD emeritus. If Wayne is okay with that.

I really think we owe him better than he is getting.

Agree 100%...but isn't your appropriate solution what I proposed last Summer when our Assistant Coach slot opened up? And, yes, from everything I know and have heard, Wayne is comfortable with a final one-year extension (though the 2019 season).

(02-26-2018 03:08 PM)Ranger Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 01:36 PM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  A track record of success at the collegiate level is a prerequisite in my opinion. I will concede that Coach Graham had only Junior College level experience prior to joining Rice, although his experience there was so incredibly successful that he was an exception to the rule. I wouldn't want a step-up candidate, like a pitching coach or an assistant who has never been a head coach at the collegiate level. Riser fits the profile of someone I'd want to get. I'd like to see 1) Texas roots; 2) Demonstrated track record of success as a head coach at the collegiate level; 3) Bonus points if they've dealt with high academic standards; 4) a motivator and persuasive person.

In business and the military, there is a huge difference between being a #2 and being the head guy. They require different skill sets. Many fabulous #2s are horrible #1s. I would bet it is the same at coaching. Therefore, unless an incredibly gifted and unusual were to come along, I think you go with someone with HC experience.

I’m glad Virginia didn’t see it that way - Brian O’Connor was Assistant HC at Notre Dame when UVA hired him in 2003 to resurrect their program (which the University was considering dropping) and by 2009 they were in Omaha...and in 2015 won it all. Much like McMullan he had been recognised as the nation’s top assistant more than
once.

(02-26-2018 01:27 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 01:01 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:24 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't see why we don't bring in a coach-elect, give Wayne a one year farewell tour, test drive the new guy to make sure it will work, and then make Wayne associate AD for life. I don't understand why it isn't already done. I would be fine doing that with Pope for this year, but it should have already been communicated publicly.

Another thing. Do we still have the problem vis-a-vis the likes of Baylor and TCU with the cost differential due to the way scholarships are supplemented there? Has that been solved in any way? Can it be? Because I'm not sure Tony LaRussa could win big here unless and until it is.

No, it has not been solved in any way. However, what Pope has done this past year, to great success, is aggressively pursue highly regarded players who meet our academic standards and qualify for hardship scholarships.

Rice has 5 sports (football, men's and women's basketball, volleyball, and women's tennis) that are full scholarship sports. With every other sport, Rice is at a huge disadvantage versus every other school because of the expense involved in attending on a partial scholarship. Only those sports with a helpful demographic (men's tennis, baseball, swimming, volleyball, and cross-country) have a remote chance to compete, and even with those, athletes often have to turn down more lucrative offers in order to come to Rice. Only track and field is screwed by all of those factors.

I’m struggling to see why we aren’t better at Golf.

More than any sport, that’s the head scratcher for me.

I'm not sure, but maybe having an on campus course, like Stanford, helps.

I apologize for helping to hijack the thread, but I want to make one final point in response to FBO's last post (which I won't list here due to space constraints).

The problem with each sport at Rice that is not a full scholarship sport is that all other schools supplement their partial scholarship athletes with either need-based or ACADEMIC aid. Rice has need-based aid, so we need not discuss that. But, the majority of aid elsewhere is in the nature of ACADEMIC aid that is not available at Rice. Thus, other schools can, for example, add ¼ of a scholarship to ¾ academic aid. Presto: full scholarship! Or, even if it's only ½ academic aid, the student has to pay much less than a corresponding percentage would cost at Rice.

And, don't even get me started on the slots given to the so-called non-revenue sports at Rice. Even if there were 5 more student-athletes who wanted to come to Rice for books only, the administration limits how many student athletes are allowed to matriculate per year. Naturally, the full scholarship sports get as many as they need; the remainder must grovel for crumbs.

Just as an example: men's track and field, by NCAA rules, has 12.6 scholarships to be used for both track and field, as well as cross-country (no separate scholarships for XC). There are 21 events at a conference outdoor championship. Rice has just 38 athletes for indoor, outdoor and cross-country. Texas A&M, with those same 12.6 scholarships, has 61 athletes (60% more than Rice). Don't you think that gives them a huge advantage, on top of the edge they have in admissions?

(02-26-2018 05:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I apologize for helping to hijack the thread, but I want to make one final point in response to FBO's last post (which I won't list here due to space constraints).

The problem with each sport at Rice that is not a full scholarship sport is that all other schools supplement their partial scholarship athletes with either need-based or ACADEMIC aid. Rice has need-based aid, so we need not discuss that. But, the majority of aid elsewhere is in the nature of ACADEMIC aid that is not available at Rice. Thus, other schools can, for example, add ¼ of a scholarship to ¾ academic aid. Presto: full scholarship! Or, even if it's only ½ academic aid, the student has to pay much less than a corresponding percentage would cost at Rice.

And, don't even get me started on the slots given to the so-called non-revenue sports at Rice. Even if there were 5 more student-athletes who wanted to come to Rice for books only, the administration limits how many student athletes are allowed to matriculate per year. Naturally, the full scholarship sports get as many as they need; the remainder must grovel for crumbs.

Just as an example: men's track and field, by NCAA rules, had 12.6 scholarships to be used for both track and field, as well as cross-country (no separate scholarships for XC). There are 21 events at a conference outdoor championship. Rice has just 38 athletes for indoor, outdoor and cross-country. Texas A&M, with those same 12.6 scholarships, has 61 athletes (60% more than Rice). Don't you think that gives them a huge advantage, on top of the edge they have in admissions?

depends, are we using aggie math or math?

(02-26-2018 04:43 PM)RiceBull Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 01:27 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  I’m struggling to see why we aren’t better at Golf.

More than any sport, that’s the head scratcher for me.

I'm not sure, but maybe having an on campus course, like Stanford, helps.

Not having business-related undergraduate degrees/majors (accounting, finance, management, entrepreneurship etc.) doesn't help either, I'd think. These are the common majors for college golfers.

(02-26-2018 03:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wayne is THE reason Rice had D1 athletics at all. Based on that he deserves to go out on terms that he is happy with.

Seems to me an appropriate solution is to bring in the heir apparent as AHC for next year, give Wayne a farewell tour, and then make him associate AD emeritus. If Wayne is okay with that.

I really think we owe him better than he is getting.

Agreed. He saved D1 athletics for Rice. Best sports asset we’ve ever had. Better than Jess Neely, given the entire context.

(02-26-2018 06:42 PM)Ricefootballnet Wrote:  

(02-26-2018 03:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wayne is THE reason Rice has D1 athletics at all. Based on that he deserves to go out on terms that he is happy with.
Seems to me an appropriate solution is to bring in the heir apparent as AHC for next year, give Wayne a farewell tour, and then make him associate AD emeritus. If Wayne is okay with that.
I really think we owe him better than he is getting.

Agreed. He saved D1 athletics for Rice. Best sports asset we’ve ever had. Better than Jess Neely, given the entire context.

At worst, at very worst, second best. Each was incredible in his own way. I'm just thrilled I got to know both of them.

Just to clarify my earlier post, for those who don't know, if you read the McKinsey report, it is pretty obvious that in the wake of the then-recent national championship, they were tasked to investigate ways that Rice could step down and still keep baseball at its then level. They basically concluded that there was no viable way to do so, so Rice remained D1. Unfortunately, Rice did not follow McKinsey's further suggestions that if we were going to stay D1 then we needed to make the commitment to do it right. McKinsey gets a bad rap in some quarters around here, but I think they did a pretty damn good job given what they had to work with.