(12-04-2022 07:38 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Sorry but rice fans and non rice fans don't see commitment. Just don't...

Because it's not there.

I think the “TCU model” that some quote started with a large group of wealthy alumni making commitments of time and money, , rather than in the offices of the President and AD. College officials follow, they do not lead.

We don’t have the same numbers and wealth in our alumni base, but in any case that is where it must start, if it is ever going to start. Need somebody with money and pull to get on the phone and form our own Committee of 100.

(12-04-2022 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the “TCU model” that some quote started with a large group of wealthy alumni making commitments of time and money, , rather than in the offices of the President and AD. College officials follow, they do not lead.

We don’t have the same numbers and wealth in our alumni base, but in any case that is where it must start, if it is ever going to start. Need somebody with money and pull to get on the phone and form our own Committee of 100.

Thank you. This is the way it works and has always worked-- not just for Rice, but for every university in the country. It's easy to ***** and point blame on a message board-- and I'm willing to bet that those that ***** the most and loudest are the ones putting up the least money. Put your money where your mouths are, or stop whining and placing the blame on the AD and the university. Tudor did, Trauber did, Alhouse did, Thigpen did, Patterson did, Gibbs did, the Bixby's did, as did several others. It's time for others to do the same.

(12-04-2022 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the “TCU model” that some quote started with a large group of wealthy alumni making commitments of time and money, , rather than in the offices of the President and AD. College officials follow, they do not lead.
We don’t have the same numbers and wealth in our alumni base, but in any case that is where it must start, if it is ever going to start. Need somebody with money and pull to get on the phone and form our own Committee of 100.

The "TCU Model," both for athletics and a contemporaneous significant upgrade in the university's academic standing, rested largely on the Barnett Shale. All those ranchers' kids from out west of Fort Worth who were sent to TCU by their parents suddenly became a lot richer and donated bunches and bunches of money to their alma mater.

(12-04-2022 08:57 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 07:38 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  Sorry but rice fans and non rice fans don't see commitment. Just don't...

I agree. The perception beyond the hedges is that Rice is not committed to the money sports in the same way that Houston, TCU, and Tulane are.

Agreed. The Univ. Admin needs to make a very public commitment in a concrete and believable way, not just platitudes. they have not really done that to any substantial degree. The TG situation set us back, not because he did not bring change and results, and not because he was not the greatest person, but because our admin got so butt-hurt by what happened with us increasing his pay and then being left at altar a few days later. We have yet to recover from that pain and it led directly to the hiring of Bailiff who slowly returned us down more or less to the lower levels where we were used to existing at. Bloom also is merely an extension of that loser philosophy.

Yes, we got jilted by Graham and it sucked, and yes it hurt when maybe it could be argued we were finally willing to try some athletically. But we should have gone right back after the same brass ring again, even though we missed on that one, because it was working better than what we had been doing. From Goldsmith to Hatfield (for a lot of his tenure until he ran out of gas at the end) to Graham, it was starting to work. We did the right thing in moving from Hat to graham, signalling we were willing to change. When Todd jilted us our collective Admin and Athletic Dept just plain gave up, just like with Hagan and what came after.

I wholly agree unequivocal and backed up by university dollars University Commitment is the key that has kept the money from flowing both from inside and outside the U.

(12-04-2022 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the “TCU model” that some quote started with a large group of wealthy alumni making commitments of time and money, , rather than in the offices of the President and AD. College officials follow, they do not lead.
We don’t have the same numbers and wealth in our alumni base, but in any case that is where it must start, if it is ever going to start. Need somebody with money and pull to get on the phone and form our own Committee of 100.

The "TCU Model," both for athletics and a contemporaneous significant upgrade in the university's academic standing, rested largely on the Barnett Shale. All those ranchers' kids from out west of Fort Worth who were sent to TCU by their parents suddenly became a lot richer and donated bunches and bunches of money to their alma mater.

It’s not just Barnett Shale money. TCU has always been a destination for scions of wealthy families. Junior usually becomes CEO about 20 years after graduation with his marketing degree. Or he marries a rich girl and takes over her dad’s chain of whatever’s.

Lots of big money alums. Not that our doctors, lawyers, and engineers are impoverished, but not many have the high 8+ figure wealth.

(12-04-2022 11:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the “TCU model” that some quote started with a large group of wealthy alumni making commitments of time and money, , rather than in the offices of the President and AD. College officials follow, they do not lead.
We don’t have the same numbers and wealth in our alumni base, but in any case that is where it must start, if it is ever going to start. Need somebody with money and pull to get on the phone and form our own Committee of 100.

The "TCU Model," both for athletics and a contemporaneous significant upgrade in the university's academic standing, rested largely on the Barnett Shale. All those ranchers' kids from out west of Fort Worth who were sent to TCU by their parents suddenly became a lot richer and donated bunches and bunches of money to their alma mater.

It’s not just Barnett Shale money. TCU has always been a destination for scions of wealthy families. Junior usually becomes CEO about 20 years after graduation with his marketing degree. Or he marries a rich girl and takes over her dad’s chain of whatever’s.

Lots of big money alums. Not that our doctors, lawyers, and engineers are impoverished, but not many have the high 8+ figure wealth.

I agree with this. The resurgence of TCU athletics..and academics…over the last generation is directly connected to BIG money contributions originating in W Texas oil fields and DFW families with W Texas oil connections. Yes, they have tremendous support from most of their alums…and the raised profile from athletics has magnified that… but their big money donors might approach those at UT and A$M. I was on the TCU campus a few years ago and building after building and plaque after plaque bore the names of people from my community here in heart of the W Texas oilfields. This is staggering levels of money we are talking about.

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

(12-03-2022 11:01 PM)Owlman49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:41 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:31 PM)markbrindley Wrote:  I agree that money is a requirement, but the money won’t come until the school commits to making it happen. Yes, the admin has spent a lot of money over the years, but they’ve never fully committed to making it happen. In my estimation, that is a big part of why the money never flows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

B.S. At every school the impetus for increased financial commitment to athletics come first from the boosters. The university follows.

Notice I didn’t say financial commitment from the university as you imply. Institutional commitment is what is missing when it comes to fund raising. The university needs to make an institutional commitment to athletics at a high level in order for funds to flow. The current level of commitment to athletics leaves potential donors wondering if there will even be athletics at Rice in 10 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What he said!! and I repeat, "So for our beloved institution, MONEY nor BRAINS is the problem, it's half-assed COMMITMENT!" Case in point, our new President has put together a Strategic Planning process and there is not one athletic representative named in this communication:

https://president.rice.edu/communication...ed-january

This pretty much says it all.

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

I'm happy to see my original post generate some "energy" on this topic. I posted it out of complete frustration coming to a head watching Tulane, win the AAC championship and knowing that we are walking into that conference and will most likely be bottom tier at best.

It is clear to me from the postings in this thread/board that most believe we have both internal and/or external issues at Rice. It is a classic chicken and egg scenario. Internally there is a lack of institutional commitment to the importance of athletics as an endeavor. Externally, we have a "financial" and attendance commitment issue.

So what is the solution? Someone suggested getting 100 alumni together to pool and direct funds. I like this idea. Living in DFW my connections across alumni is limited but I would be willing to help and I am sure others on this board would as well. Walt, you seem well connected and it would take someone who is. Want take the lead on this?

Looking at the Tulane-UCF game yesterday, did you notice how much commercial signage there was around the field? That’s one revenue source that Rice does not currently tap into. I would guess that all told Tulane might get as much as $1mm from those sources. Rice would not, at least not immediately, because the Rice brand is not as strong as the Tulane brand.

The solution to the attendance issue is to win and win continuously, year after year. That and raise the level of student involvement substantially, and then keep them involved when they become alumni.

Tulane’s student body is almost entirely (91%) out of state, which should dispel the oft-stated notion on here that recruiting a more Texas/Southern student body will help student attendance.

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

How many former Rice athletes are there?

(12-04-2022 02:49 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

How many former Rice athletes are there?

A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

(12-04-2022 03:06 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:49 PM)dragon2owl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

How many former Rice athletes are there?

A lot of former Rice athletes are Texas or LSU fans too. Not saying they don’t care about Rice but we don’t have a large group of alumni willing to spend their money to make Rice athletics better. The University has never prioritized it so why throw good money at something without a chance. First year in 10+ that I didn’t buy season tickets.

If a donor offered Rice $100 million dollars for athletics, Rice would turn it down. They don't want money or need money. They want to keep athletics 'under control.' They don't want what Parliament wants. The investment will never be at a level we want. They'll make due with what they have, and they're comfortable with that. Rice doesn't want anything distracting from its core mission. That's how it thinks

(12-04-2022 02:43 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 01:12 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2022 12:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-03-2022 10:28 PM)Grungy Wrote:  [Gnote: Walt said pretty much the same thing I'm saying here before I could hit "Post Reply".]

It's all about money.
Who's going to cough up the money to fund that commitment?

Numbers said at some point in the past that it might cost a million to fund one aspect of attaining relevance, and another million to fund the other half (I forget what it was, and I'm too lazy to look it up).
I think we're looking at tens of millions to become relevant.
Or am I still way low on the estimate?

Do we have deep-pocket alumni or fans that are going to write a check?

Don't imagine that the board is going to spend any/much of that endowment on men's sports.
Bobby Tudor was chairman of the board for a term - he didn't make it happen.
Bucky Allshouse was on the board - he didn't make it happen.
They have each given a lot already.

I'm not against what is being suggested here, and would welcome that kind of change, but I am not going to hold my breath.

Finally, a voice of reason.

People, Rice doesn't want a 'relevant' football program in the eyes of the nation that competes for conference championships every year, or that wins 10 games a year, or that sends three players every season to the NFL. It doesn't care to have that!!!

Rice has a football program because it has played football for over 100 years, and it's part of the 'student experience' on campus. It does this against the backdrop of being the best academic institution in the state, and one of the best in the nation. It will spend as little as possible to make it great, because it isn't a priority. They're satisfied with doing just enough to make it competitive, and to keep us in the same conference as SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane.

I cannot explain why Rice can't think like Stanford, or Baylor, or TCU, but it won't. It will never happen. Rice has a different attitude toward athletics, and it isn't changing.

That may well be the way Rice thinks of athletics, but it is only the alumni who can change that. If the alumni rise up and take control of the direction and focus of athletics, the Administration will follow. If the alumni continue to sit on the side and *****, nothing will happen.

The alumni just don't care enough to enact change in athletics. We here are a very rare breed. Others don't share the passion.

+1
+1
+1
+1
There's alot of talk here about money, and there's alot of talk about coaching.
To me, Rice's primary failing is in its development of a social 'school spirit' community culture. And much of the rest of our frustrations fall from this common issue.
Committing to this doesn't take alot of money. It takes caring about it, and it takes at least some focus on the admissions process. Our exceptional selectivity should allow us to pick students who want to come to Rice for this part of the college experience. We seem strongly committed to the opposite.
What I would love to experience, at least once more in my life, is an authentic rivalry game in Rice Stadium -- where our student section is full, our band legitimate, our team competitive, and the crowd electric.
If I could have that, I wouldn't care if we ever went to another bowl game.

(12-04-2022 03:48 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They'll make due with what they have

Misspelled “doo”

Hehehe