(02-24-2023 03:33 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:11 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain.

That's because success is not an objective. Not making waves is the objective.
Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

The path of least resistance will never lead to 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, not to mention any better than that.

Correct, but respectively, Rice isn't taking a path of least resistance. Rice is taking it's path, and it likes it that way. Rice knows damn well what it needs to do to have competitive men's athletics, it simply doesn't care to make the changes and investments necessary to bring it to fruition. It's going to work within the parameters that were set in stone one hundred years ago. It has no desire to change. It will always do the minimum.

Which strikes me as the path of least resistance.

(02-24-2023 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 03:33 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:11 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain.

That's because success is not an objective. Not making waves is the objective.
Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

The path of least resistance will never lead to 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, not to mention any better than that.

Correct, but respectively, Rice isn't taking a path of least resistance. Rice is taking it's path, and it likes it that way. Rice knows damn well what it needs to do to have competitive men's athletics, it simply doesn't care to make the changes and investments necessary to bring it to fruition. It's going to work within the parameters that were set in stone one hundred years ago. It has no desire to change. It will always do the minimum.

Which strikes me as the path of least resistance.

They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 04:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 03:33 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 02:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:11 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Success is very difficult to come by, and almost impossible to sustain.

That's because success is not an objective. Not making waves is the objective.
Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse. If you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

The path of least resistance will never lead to 7-5, 9-3, 9-3, not to mention any better than that.

Correct, but respectively, Rice isn't taking a path of least resistance. Rice is taking it's path, and it likes it that way. Rice knows damn well what it needs to do to have competitive men's athletics, it simply doesn't care to make the changes and investments necessary to bring it to fruition. It's going to work within the parameters that were set in stone one hundred years ago. It has no desire to change. It will always do the minimum.

Which strikes me as the path of least resistance.

They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Rules are only built in excuses. "They" can do any thing that they damn well please. They choose neglect to provide plausible deniability. That's it and is simple as that.......

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Then Rice should do nothing--drop athletics altogether.

I somehow doubt that the bylaws were intended, or should be interpreted, to mandate an athletic program that is a laughing stock. And that is what the present course dictates. McKinsey said do it right or don't do it. Twenty years later, Rice has yet to decide which.

(02-25-2023 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Then Rice should do nothing--drop athletics altogether.

I somehow doubt that the bylaws were intended, or should be interpreted, to mandate an athletic program that is a laughing stock. And that is what the present course dictates. McKinsey said do it right or don't do it. Twenty years later, Rice has yet to decide which.

"...I'm still... collating, actually..."
~ Ash, "Alien"

(02-25-2023 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Then Rice should do nothing--drop athletics altogether.

I somehow doubt that the bylaws were intended, or should be interpreted, to mandate an athletic program that is a laughing stock. And that is what the present course dictates. McKinsey said do it right or don't do it. Twenty years later, Rice has yet to decide which.

Rice appears to have selected a different path - death by neglect.

(02-25-2023 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Then Rice should do nothing--drop athletics altogether.

I somehow doubt that the bylaws were intended, or should be interpreted, to mandate an athletic program that is a laughing stock. And that is what the present course dictates. McKinsey said do it right or don't do it. Twenty years later, Rice has yet to decide which.

Rice's problems in athletics are most directly tied to academic restrictions. They're the most stringent in the country. In a nutshell, that's by far the biggest barrier, and it will never change.

We can't blame low salaries anymore, because those are up. They aren't high enough to attract the best coaches, and never will be, but they're up. We also really can't blame athletics infrastructure anymore, because everything but Rice Stadium has been refurbished. We just spent $10 million to get into the AAC, and we're increasing our budget to $40 million annually. I think it's important to acknowledge all this. The problem of 'neglect' is a problem of the past that we are still paying for today. Rice waited 30 years too long to make these investments.

Let's face it. Karlgaard made a terrible hire in Mike Bloomgren, whom I believe is making $1 million a year. Up until now, his system has been a failure.

God bless David Bailiff and Ken Hatfield. They did well for years with little support. It's no wonder they finally ended up crashing and burning.

(02-25-2023 01:05 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

Then Rice should do nothing--drop athletics altogether.

I somehow doubt that the bylaws were intended, or should be interpreted, to mandate an athletic program that is a laughing stock. And that is what the present course dictates. McKinsey said do it right or don't do it. Twenty years later, Rice has yet to decide which.

Rice's problems in athletics are most directly tied to academic restrictions. They're the most stringent in the country. In a nutshell, that's by far the biggest barrier, and it will never change.

We can't blame low salaries anymore, because those are up. They aren't high enough to attract the best coaches, and never will be, but they're up. We also really can't blame athletics infrastructure anymore, because everything but Rice Stadium has been refurbished. We just spent $10 million to get into the AAC, and we're increasing our budget to $40 million annually. I think it's important to acknowledge all this. The problem of 'neglect' is a problem of the past that we are still paying for today. Rice waited 30 years too long to make these investments.

Let's face it. Karlgaard made a terrible hire in Mike Bloomgren, whom I believe is making $1 million a year. Up until now, his system has been a failure.

God bless David Bailiff and Ken Hatfield. They did well for years with little support. It's no wonder they finally ended up crashing and burning.

By crashing and burning, do you mean run out of town?

(02-25-2023 01:05 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice's problems in athletics are most directly tied to academic restrictions.

I would say tey are tied more to blaming academic restrictions than working with them. Wayne embraced the academics, "I can't recruit everybody that my competitors can, but I can promise every recruit a Rice education, and they can't do that."

Rice may have the single toughest academic restrictions for athletes (and there is a strong argument that what's good enough for Stanford or Duke or Northwestern or Notre Dame, private universities with similar academic ranking, is good enough for Rice). But if those others have managed to be competitive at the highest athletic level while maintaining very similar standards, sorely Rice can avoid finishing last in CUSA.

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

I am curious what bylaw provisions or rules you are referring to?

Reminds of when everyone "knew for a fact" that an NCAA rule prevented Rice from selling beer in its arenas. It turns out (as I knew all along) that there was no such rule; Rice simply chose not to do it -- while allowing people believe that it didn't have a choice, when it fact it did.

(02-25-2023 08:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 01:05 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice's problems in athletics are most directly tied to academic restrictions.

I would say tey are tied more to blaming academic restrictions than working with them. Wayne embraced the academics, "I can't recruit everybody that my competitors can, but I can promise every recruit a Rice education, and they can't do that."

Rice may have the single toughest academic restrictions for athletes (and there is a strong argument that what's good enough for Stanford or Duke or Northwestern or Notre Dame, private universities with similar academic ranking, is good enough for Rice). But if those others have managed to be competitive at the highest athletic level while maintaining very similar standards, sorely Rice can avoid finishing last in CUSA.

Oh c'mon now. Not everyone is Wayne Graham. He's the best coach in Rice history. It's also much easier to recruit a baseball player than a 6'4", 300 pound lineman. Baseball requires far fewer players than football and there are far fewer injuries. Other than pitcher, there's no real need for depth at any other position.

As for Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, and Notre Dame, they're all fine academic institutions with high standards, but they have the advantage of high alumni numbers and great conference affiliations. They make tens of millions in TV revenue that they reinvest. We don't have that, and we don't have donors to make up for it.

Yes, Rice did nothing for athletics for 45 years, but I don't know if that's a fair assessment today. It's those 45 years of neglect of and hostility toward sports that put us in the hole we're in today.

My biggest beef with Rice is it's tendency to keep bad coaches for too long. That's the problem that I'm having.

(02-25-2023 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

I am curious what bylaw provisions or rules you are referring to?

Reminds of when everyone "knew for a fact" that an NCAA rule prevented Rice from selling beer in its arenas. It turns out (as I knew all along) that there was no such rule; Rice simply chose not to do it -- while allowing people believe that it didn't have a choice, when it fact it did.

For example, Rice can't spend a dime of it's $5 billion on stadium improvements. It can't sell naming rights either. Where are the tens of millions of dollars to properly renovate the stadium supposed to come from? Not our donors. There are none. So the stadium deteriorates. We can't get past Phase 1.

(02-25-2023 10:40 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Yes, Rice did nothing for athletics for 45 years, but I don't know if that's a fair assessment today. It's those 45 years of neglect of and hostility toward sports that put us in the hole we're in today.

And I was up close and personal almost all those years, and I can assure you that you have no idea how many incredibly stupid decisions Rice made during those years.

(02-25-2023 11:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 10:40 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Yes, Rice did nothing for athletics for 45 years, but I don't know if that's a fair assessment today. It's those 45 years of neglect of and hostility toward sports that put us in the hole we're in today.

And I was up close and personal almost all those years, and I can assure you that you have no idea how many incredibly stupid decisions Rice made during those years.

I believe it. Complete incompetence. Complete neglect. Look what it has done to us. If we had made the proper investments in 1995 that we began making six years ago, Rice would be in the discussion to go to the weak PAC12 with SMU, not Tulane. Our house would be in order.

(02-25-2023 11:12 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

I am curious what bylaw provisions or rules you are referring to?

Reminds of when everyone "knew for a fact" that an NCAA rule prevented Rice from selling beer in its arenas. It turns out (as I knew all along) that there was no such rule; Rice simply chose not to do it -- while allowing people believe that it didn't have a choice, when it fact it did.

For example, Rice can't spend a dime of it's $5 billion on stadium improvements. It can't sell naming rights either. Where are the tens of millions of dollars to properly renovate the stadium supposed to come from? Not our donors. There are none. So the stadium deteriorates. We can't get past Phase 1.

No quibble about the lack of major donors relative to other universities but it’s absolutely not true that Rice can’t sell naming rights. We 100% can. Also, what rule states that the endowment can’t be used for stadium improvements?

Most every “rule” that I’ve read on this board that was supposedly a restrictive “Rice only” policy has turned out to be an unsubstantiated rumor, disproven after I asked the Development office or the Athletic Dept for confirmation.

We have enough systemic, cultural and financial issues without creating imaginary ones.

(02-26-2023 11:42 PM)NYNightOwl Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 11:12 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-25-2023 09:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-24-2023 10:50 PM)Ourland Wrote:  They're following the bylaws. It's what's expected of the BOT, President, and AD. Calling it the 'path of least resistance' implies there's choice. I doubt there's much choice. Rules are in place that keep Rice from doing more than what's absolutely necessary in athletics.

I am curious what bylaw provisions or rules you are referring to?

Reminds of when everyone "knew for a fact" that an NCAA rule prevented Rice from selling beer in its arenas. It turns out (as I knew all along) that there was no such rule; Rice simply chose not to do it -- while allowing people believe that it didn't have a choice, when it fact it did.

For example, Rice can't spend a dime of it's $5 billion on stadium improvements. It can't sell naming rights either. Where are the tens of millions of dollars to properly renovate the stadium supposed to come from? Not our donors. There are none. So the stadium deteriorates. We can't get past Phase 1.

No quibble about the lack of major donors relative to other universities but it’s absolutely not true that Rice can’t sell naming rights. We 100% can. Also, what rule states that the endowment can’t be used for stadium improvements?

Most every “rule” that I’ve read on this board that was supposedly a restrictive “Rice only” policy has turned out to be an unsubstantiated rumor, disproven after I asked the Development office or the Athletic Dept for confirmation.

We have enough systemic, cultural and financial issues without creating imaginary ones.

There must be some structures in place that have prevented the university from spending its own money on athletics all of this time.

Why solicit donations for stadium renovations, or not buy out a bad coach's contract when you have $5 billion sitting around? Rice's problems can't be completely explained away as systematic or cultural.

There have been strong pro-athletic BOT members over the years who have served with the intent of specifically increasing funding for athletics. It doesn't make sense to me. I can't believe that every attempt to ask for money has been met with a 'no' so consistently for so long. Surely no school can have such disdain for athletics.

(02-27-2023 02:15 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There must be some structures in place that have prevented the university from spending its own money on athletics all of this time.

The sources of those structures have been policy decisions by the university administration, not charter or bylaws.

Quote:Surely no school can have such disdain for athletics.

Rice does.

In the mid-1960s Rice was as competitive in athletics across the board as Stanford and Duke, possibly more competitive than Vandy or Northwestern. Rice won track, tennis, and basketball conference championships during my time as an undergrad. From 1960 through 1966, Rice football was 2-4-1 versus Texas and 3-2-1 versus LSU. Around the late 1960s/early 1970s, intercollegiate athletics became more competitive, as the money involved grew. ADs became more businessmen and less coaches kicked upstairs, led by the likes of Don Canham at Michigan and Russ Potts at Maryland and SMU. Stanford and Duke stepped up the pace immediately. Stanford won Rose Bowls after the 1970 and 1971 football seasons, and Duke was in the Final Four by 1978.

Vandy and Northwestern joined the party later, Rice never. Rice ADs continued to be coaches kicked upstairs and IIRC, Rice did not win a single conference championship in any sport, men's or women's, from the early/mid-1970s to the early/mid-1990s, a truly remarkable record for non-competitiveness.

Why Rice took a different course from its peers has always concerned me. A lot of fans and alumni blame Pitzer, and he was certainly involved in pushing Neely out the door and replacing him with the hapless Hagan. But Pitzer left Rice for Stanford in 1969 and was at Stanford when Stanford was making decidedly different choices about athletics, perhaps best symbolized by those Rose Bowl wins. I have my suspicions that in part it was due to at least latent racism, the perception that Black athletes can't handle Rice academics and therefore Rice can't recruit them.

Stanford, Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern all chose a different path for athletics in roughly the 1970s, and I doubt very seriously that any of them regret it. That path was open to Rice, but Rice rejected it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(02-27-2023 05:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 02:15 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There must be some structures in place that have prevented the university from spending its own money on athletics all of this time.

The sources of those structures have been policy decisions by the university administration, not charter or bylaws.

Quote:Surely no school can have such disdain for athletics.

Rice does.

In the mid-1960s Rice was as competitive in athletics across the board as Stanford and Duke, possibly more competitive than Vandy or Northwestern. Rice won track, tennis, and basketball conference championships during my time as an undergrad. From 1960 through 1966, Rice football was 2-4-1 versus Texas and 3-2-1 versus LSU. Around the late 1960s/early 1970s, intercollegiate athletics became more competitive, as the money involved grew. ADs became more businessmen and less coaches kicked upstairs, led by the likes of Don Canham at Michigan and Russ Potts at Maryland and SMU. Stanford and Duke stepped up the pace immediately. Stanford won Rose Bowls after the 1970 and 1971 football seasons, and Duke was in the Final Four by 1978.

Vandy and Northwestern joined the party later, Rice never. Rice ADs continued to be coaches kicked upstairs and IIRC, Rice did not win a single conference championship in any sport, men's or women's, from the early/mid-1970s to the early/mid-1990s, a truly remarkable record for non-competitiveness.

Why Rice took a different course from its peers has always concerned me. A lot of fans and alumni blame Pitzer, and he was certainly involved in pushing Neely out the door and replacing him with the hapless Hagan. But Pitzer left Rice for Stanford in 1969 and was at Stanford when Stanford was making decidedly different choices about athletics, perhaps best symbolized by those Rose Bowl wins. I have my suspicions that in part it was due to at least latent racism, the perception that Black athletes can't handle Rice academics and therefore Rice can't recruit them.

Stanford, Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern all chose a different path for athletics in roughly the 1970s, and I doubt very seriously that any of them regret it. That path was open to Rice, but Rice rejected it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Was it the case in the late 60's that Rice just didn't start changing with the times, and start spending like others, because I know that was the case in the mid 90's after the SWC dissolved. Rice stood around with its thumb up its rear.

What caused the indifference toward athletics? Was it always there, but we were still able to win because no one else was spending as well? I just don't get it. It must be something that was firmly instilled in the fabric of the university from the start (bylaws), as opposed to a culture or attitude. How can it still endure today? I'm having trouble understanding why other like-minded peers spend money, but we don’t. That's why I'm led to believe it's because of strict rules.

Why have athletics if you aren't going to properly fund it? I just don't understand. Rice has a $5 billion endowment. It could do academics and athletics equally well. All this makes me sick.

What did Rice do with the money when the stadium was sold out in the 50s and early 60s and was very successful in football? Where did the money go, to the endownment?

(02-27-2023 10:09 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 05:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 02:15 AM)Ourland Wrote:  There must be some structures in place that have prevented the university from spending its own money on athletics all of this time.

The sources of those structures have been policy decisions by the university administration, not charter or bylaws.

Quote:Surely no school can have such disdain for athletics.

Rice does.

In the mid-1960s Rice was as competitive in athletics across the board as Stanford and Duke, possibly more competitive than Vandy or Northwestern. Rice won track, tennis, and basketball conference championships during my time as an undergrad. From 1960 through 1966, Rice football was 2-4-1 versus Texas and 3-2-1 versus LSU. Around the late 1960s/early 1970s, intercollegiate athletics became more competitive, as the money involved grew. ADs became more businessmen and less coaches kicked upstairs, led by the likes of Don Canham at Michigan and Russ Potts at Maryland and SMU. Stanford and Duke stepped up the pace immediately. Stanford won Rose Bowls after the 1970 and 1971 football seasons, and Duke was in the Final Four by 1978.

Vandy and Northwestern joined the party later, Rice never. Rice ADs continued to be coaches kicked upstairs and IIRC, Rice did not win a single conference championship in any sport, men's or women's, from the early/mid-1970s to the early/mid-1990s, a truly remarkable record for non-competitiveness.

Why Rice took a different course from its peers has always concerned me. A lot of fans and alumni blame Pitzer, and he was certainly involved in pushing Neely out the door and replacing him with the hapless Hagan. But Pitzer left Rice for Stanford in 1969 and was at Stanford when Stanford was making decidedly different choices about athletics, perhaps best symbolized by those Rose Bowl wins. I have my suspicions that in part it was due to at least latent racism, the perception that Black athletes can't handle Rice academics and therefore Rice can't recruit them.

Stanford, Duke, Vandy, and Northwestern all chose a different path for athletics in roughly the 1970s, and I doubt very seriously that any of them regret it. That path was open to Rice, but Rice rejected it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Was it the case in the late 60's that Rice just didn't start changing with the times, and start spending like others, because I know that was the case in the mid 90's after the SWC dissolved. Rice stood around with its thumb up its rear.

What caused the indifference toward athletics? Was it always there, but we were still able to win because no one else was spending as well? I just don't get it. It must be something that was firmly instilled in the fabric of the university from the start (bylaws), as opposed to a culture or attitude. How can it still endure today? I'm having trouble understanding why other like-minded peers spend money, but we don’t. That's why I'm led to believe it's because of strict rules.

Why have athletics if you aren't going to properly fund it? I just don't understand. Rice has a $5 billion endowment. It could do academics and athletics equally well. All this makes me sick.