Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

(02-27-2023 10:09 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Was it the case in the late 60's that Rice just didn't start changing with the times, and start spending like others,

Yes, but it was way more than just spending. We were slow to integrate, and hopelessly slow to adjust to the rise of pro football as a career choice.

Quote: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?

It was always there. We could get by because before about 1960, lots of talented kids choose schools for the degree, not for a pathway to the pros, and because one platoon football enabled us to get by with recruiting a few very good players who went both ways. In the 50's, going to the Cotton Bowl once every 4 or so years was enough not just for us, but for all of the SWC.

(02-27-2023 11:16 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

Harvard is FCS. Yes, we are more aligned with them, but they wouldn't want us.
1) much more expensive travel with no meaningful additional revenue or long term connections to encourage rivalries.
2) it would change their Texas recruiting, and not in a good way... validating Rice as an academic peer... as opposed to a 'step down'.

There are not enough realistic peers locally to create a southern Ivy, aka the Magnolia League... Tulsa, Tulane, WashU and others... I can't recall... but more it would be decimated by Texas FCS schools... something the IVY doesn't really have to compete with.

(02-27-2023 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 10:09 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Was it the case in the late 60's that Rice just didn't start changing with the times, and start spending like others,

Yes, but it was way more than just spending. We were slow to integrate, and hopelessly slow to adjust to the rise of pro football as a career choice.

Quote: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?

It was always there. We could get by because before about 1960, lots of talented kids choose schools for the degree, not for a pathway to the pros, and because one platoon football enabled us to get by with recruiting a few very good players who went both ways. In the 50's, going to the Cotton Bowl once every 4 or so years was enough not just for us, but for all of the SWC.

Good responses. I appreciate it. Numbers, maybe you can give your perspective on this as well, being that you're one of our older alums.

(02-27-2023 11:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:16 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

Harvard is FCS. Yes, we are more aligned with them, but they wouldn't want us.
1) much more expensive travel with no meaningful additional revenue or long term connections to encourage rivalries.
2) it would change their Texas recruiting, and not in a good way... validating Rice as an academic peer... as opposed to a 'step down'.

There are not enough realistic peers locally to create a southern Ivy, aka the Magnolia League... Tulsa, Tulane, WashU and others... I can't recall... but more it would be decimated by Texas FCS schools... something the IVY doesn't really have to compete with.

So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

The way it looks, we're stuck.. We can't go down a level, because there's no one like-minded in this region for us to play, we'd lose visibility, and we wouldn't be competing at the highest level. Or is it that we could drop down, but don't want to? Should we be giving credit to the university for, at least, keeping us here all this time, despite underfunding (?) to make us competitive? I mean, at least they haven't dropped football for all these decades. Thoughts? OO, Numbers?

(02-27-2023 12:20 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:16 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

Harvard is FCS. Yes, we are more aligned with them, but they wouldn't want us.
1) much more expensive travel with no meaningful additional revenue or long term connections to encourage rivalries.
2) it would change their Texas recruiting, and not in a good way... validating Rice as an academic peer... as opposed to a 'step down'.

There are not enough realistic peers locally to create a southern Ivy, aka the Magnolia League... Tulsa, Tulane, WashU and others... I can't recall... but more it would be decimated by Texas FCS schools... something the IVY doesn't really have to compete with.

So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

The way it looks, we're stuck.. We can't go down a level, because there's no one like-minded in this region for us to play, we'd lose visibility, and we wouldn't be competing at the highest level. Or is it that we could drop down, but don't want to? Should we be giving credit to the university for, at least, keeping us here all this time, despite underfunding (?) to make us competitive? I mean, at least they haven't dropped football for all these decades. Thoughts? OO, Numbers?

No the Ivies don’t share our attitude toward athletics, particularly with respect to non-revenue and club sports. They compete hard and want to win, just within established limitations about what they will and won’t do.

Example I have mentioned before. Collegiate rugby final fours (men and women at same time/place) were in Tampa in 2000. Princeton was in the women’s final against Penn State. Princeton had three coaches on the sideline in mikes and earphones, talking to two in press box upstairs, five student trainers/managers and a physio, and Katie Stewart of Princeton had won the Sorenson (Women’s rugby “Heismman”).

Pregame the Princeton alumni sponsored a beer and bbq tent, with about 80-100 alumni and friends present. Is there any non-revenue or club sport that Rice supports to anything even remotely approaching that level?

I firmly support elevating non-revenue and club sports to an Ivy League level.

(02-27-2023 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 12:20 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:16 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

Harvard is FCS. Yes, we are more aligned with them, but they wouldn't want us.
1) much more expensive travel with no meaningful additional revenue or long term connections to encourage rivalries.
2) it would change their Texas recruiting, and not in a good way... validating Rice as an academic peer... as opposed to a 'step down'.

There are not enough realistic peers locally to create a southern Ivy, aka the Magnolia League... Tulsa, Tulane, WashU and others... I can't recall... but more it would be decimated by Texas FCS schools... something the IVY doesn't really have to compete with.

So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

The way it looks, we're stuck.. We can't go down a level, because there's no one like-minded in this region for us to play, we'd lose visibility, and we wouldn't be competing at the highest level. Or is it that we could drop down, but don't want to? Should we be giving credit to the university for, at least, keeping us here all this time, despite underfunding (?) to make us competitive? I mean, at least they haven't dropped football for all these decades. Thoughts? OO, Numbers?

No the Ivies don’t share our attitude toward athletics, particularly with respect to non-revenue and club sports. They compete hard and want to win, just within established limitations about what they will and won’t do.

Example I have mentioned before. Collegiate rugby final fours (men and women at same time/place) were in Tampa in 2000. Princeton was in the women’s final against Penn State. Princeton had three coaches on the sideline in mikes and earphones, talking to two in press box upstairs, five student trainers/managers and a physio, and Katie Stewart of Princeton had won the Sorenson (Women’s rugby “Heismman”).

Pregame the Princeton alumni sponsored a beer and bbq tent, with about 80-100 alumni and friends present. Is there any non-revenue or club sport that Rice supports to anything even remotely approaching that level?

I firmly support elevating non-revenue and club sports to an Ivy League level.

I'm not familiar with 'club sports.' What are they? How are they connected to a university.

Do the Ivies compete at the D1 FBS level in everything but football? That's how it sounds to me. I know they send a rep to the NCAA tournament every year. I remember Princeton always winning a first and second round game. They were really coached well.

(02-27-2023 12:20 PM)Ourland Wrote:  So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

I don't know what you mean by... not something we like to think??

Do you mean we are more like FCS but we like to think we're FBS? Its bigger than that. FCS is an option for Harvard because they have numerous other similar institutions within a short drive for them, students and alumni visiting their alma mater... additionally, these schools are intellectual peers... so athletic competition is merely an extension of every other way that they compete with each other.


Yes, we can applaud the University for spending what they spend... allowing what they allow.... but our situation is vastly different from that of the ivies. It is apples:oranges. If we aren't Rice, doing what we're doing or more... then we're competing with ACU, PVAM, TSU and SFA.... and we really have no business competing athletically with schools that we don't compete in other ways with. How many kids apply to Rice with any of those being their 'safety' school?

I'm not knocking those schools... they simply serve a different purpose.

The closest academic peer we have in Texas is UT. The next closest I guess would be SMU, Baylor, TCU and A&M.

Competing with UTSA et al is not without merit... but it does not in any way reflect who we are as a University. Competing against SMU, Army, Navy, Tulsa etc is much closer... but other than the academies who have NEVER before selected us, almost everyone else in the AAC has rejected us or left us behind before.

One of the things that made the SWC so great was that so many of our students and athletes (and theirs) had to choose between them... so the competition on the field was a way to (amusingly) justify their choices.

(02-27-2023 12:46 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 12:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 12:20 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 11:16 AM)Ourland Wrote:  Question...Is Rice's attitude toward athletics more in line with Harvard, Yale and Princeton as opposed to Stanford, Duke and Northwestern? Is there a difference?

Ivy League schools are Division 2 in football, if I'm not mistaken, meaning they don't spend nearly the money as FBS programs. Are we better suited for the Ivy League than FBS? I'm definitely not advocating for a move to a lower level, I just wonder if our 'culture' and 'attitude' toward athletics is more in line with the Ivies than our peers in FBS.

Would the Ivy League have us? Is that where we really belong? Is our culture more in line with theirs? Are we an FBS school that really belongs in the Ivy League, given our reluctance to spend on athletics?

Harvard is FCS. Yes, we are more aligned with them, but they wouldn't want us.
1) much more expensive travel with no meaningful additional revenue or long term connections to encourage rivalries.
2) it would change their Texas recruiting, and not in a good way... validating Rice as an academic peer... as opposed to a 'step down'.

There are not enough realistic peers locally to create a southern Ivy, aka the Magnolia League... Tulsa, Tulane, WashU and others... I can't recall... but more it would be decimated by Texas FCS schools... something the IVY doesn't really have to compete with.

So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

The way it looks, we're stuck.. We can't go down a level, because there's no one like-minded in this region for us to play, we'd lose visibility, and we wouldn't be competing at the highest level. Or is it that we could drop down, but don't want to? Should we be giving credit to the university for, at least, keeping us here all this time, despite underfunding (?) to make us competitive? I mean, at least they haven't dropped football for all these decades. Thoughts? OO, Numbers?

No the Ivies don’t share our attitude toward athletics, particularly with respect to non-revenue and club sports. They compete hard and want to win, just within established limitations about what they will and won’t do.

Example I have mentioned before. Collegiate rugby final fours (men and women at same time/place) were in Tampa in 2000. Princeton was in the women’s final against Penn State. Princeton had three coaches on the sideline in mikes and earphones, talking to two in press box upstairs, five student trainers/managers and a physio, and Katie Stewart of Princeton had won the Sorenson (Women’s rugby “Heismman”).

Pregame the Princeton alumni sponsored a beer and bbq tent, with about 80-100 alumni and friends present. Is there any non-revenue or club sport that Rice supports to anything even remotely approaching that level?

I firmly support elevating non-revenue and club sports to an Ivy League level.

I'm not familiar with 'club sports.' What are they? How are they connected to a university.

Do the Ivies compete at the D1 FBS level in everything but football? That's how it sounds to me. I know they send a rep to the NCAA tournament every year. I remember Princeton always winning a first and second round game. They were really coached well.

Just take away the "sport" part of club sports and that probably provides a general explanation. Club sports are no different than the chess club at a university; they may receive some club/student life funding from the university and then the rest they raise externally through donations, merchandise fundraisers, member dues, etc. If applicable, they compete against other clubs from other universities. They do not receive athletic scholarships.

To answer the second question, there is no FBS/FCS split at other sports, just football. Every other sport else is just a single DI, DII, DIII, etc.

(02-27-2023 12:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 12:20 PM)Ourland Wrote:  So, the Ivies share our attitude toward athletics, and it's place in the overall culture of an elite academic institution? It's not a priority, right? We really are on par with the academics of the Ivy League schools right? It's not just something that we like to 'think?'

I don't know what you mean by... not something we like to think??

Do you mean we are more like FCS but we like to think we're FBS? Its bigger than that. FCS is an option for Harvard because they have numerous other similar institutions within a short drive for them, students and alumni visiting their alma mater... additionally, these schools are intellectual peers... so athletic competition is merely an extension of every other way that they compete with each other.


Yes, we can applaud the University for spending what they spend... allowing what they allow.... but our situation is vastly different from that of the ivies. It is apples:oranges. If we aren't Rice, doing what we're doing or more... then we're competing with ACU, PVAM, TSU and SFA.... and we really have no business competing athletically with schools that we don't compete in other ways with. How many kids apply to Rice with any of those being their 'safety' school?

I'm not knocking those schools... they simply serve a different purpose.

The closest academic peer we have in Texas is UT. The next closest I guess would be SMU, Baylor, TCU and A&M.

Competing with UTSA et al is not without merit... but it does not in any way reflect who we are as a University. Competing against SMU, Army, Navy, Tulsa etc is much closer... but other than the academies who have NEVER before selected us, almost everyone else in the AAC has rejected us or left us behind before.

One of the things that made the SWC so great was that so many of our students and athletes (and theirs) had to choose between them... so the competition on the field was a way to (amusingly) justify their choices.

Sure, I get that. Since the breakup of the SWC, we haven't been able to adequately replace the academic and geographic rivalries we had. Yes, we had a lot in common with Texas and those private schools.

The AAC is really the first post-SWC affiliation we've had that groups us with other like-minded universities. It's an improvement. It's too bad that it looks like we'll lose SMU and Tulsa soon. It's really a damn shame. There are no other private schools to take their place. The conference continues to fall apart around us.

How do we get Rice to spend more on athletics? Is it even possible? What can we do to get them to at least spend the $1 million or so necessary to buy out a bad coach's contract? That would go a very long way in improving matters. We keep bad coaches for too long.

The fact that Bloomgren is still here is laughable to our competition, and it's infuriating to us. If I could change one single thing, it would be for Rice to finally hold coaches accountable. If they can't win after four years, then they need to go. Rice is not proactive enough. It sits and twiddles while action needs to be taken.

(02-27-2023 01:02 PM)Ourland Wrote:  The conference continues to fall apart around us.

I'll take a different stance here.

The conferences around us are simply moving at a much faster pace than we seem willing to do... and often leave us behind rather than to allow us to be an anchor around their necks.

We need to be LEADERS. That doesn't by definition mean we have to spend more than everyone else OR that we have to win all the time.... It means that WE need to be the ones pushing for improvement and seeking a better situation for ourselves... and if that means staying in whatever conference we are in then fine... but if it means seeking a different affiliation then WE need to be the ones making the conference 'fall apart' for others, or to convince them to follow US to making our conference better.

We need to be the first team from CUSA or now the AAC in conversations where a 'higher' league is looking to expand... and not just the 'considered, but rejected' ones.... Because the reason we're considered is our location and our academics.... which are not functions of athletics. The reason we're mostly rejected is because of our athletic performance and fan attraction.... which are.

(02-27-2023 02:06 PM)Ourland Wrote:  If I could change one single thing, it would be for Rice to finally hold coaches accountable. If they can't win after four years, then they need to go. Rice is not proactive enough. It sits and twiddles while action needs to be taken.

We seem to have this idea that if we give coaches time to succeed, that they will for some reason turn down the many more millions that others will offer them once they succeed...

But Bailiff is the perfect example. He DID succeed... and yet nobody else really wanted him.... because if they had wanted him, he would have been gone.

I don't mean that there weren't people out there willing to give him a little bump... I mean there weren't people out there thinking that he could be the next head coach of a p5 program.

Let me say that a different way/more clear...
If THEY don't think he can coach at the p5 level, what does that say about Rice?

We need to hire Rice guys....

OR we need to hire head coaches that in fairly short order are seen by p5 schools as p5 coaching candidates.... because that is how we want RICE to be seen. If they don't see our 'successful' coach as being a candidate for p5 membership, then of course they aren't seeing Rice as a candidate for p5 membership. Yes, it takes more than a head coach for us to be a candidate, but if you don't have the coach, you aren't going to get there.

It's like we're trying to hire a coach who can win our conference, but not do so well that we can't keep him.... which is an all but impossible ask. What we need to do is hire coaches that we can't keep unless we get the revenues of a p5 conference or at least of a significant and competitive p5 OOC schedule.... and then to strategically pay OUT OF POCKET IF NECESSARY to keep one as part of a plan to get invited to one.

We need to develop a plan to be spending 10+mm more per year on football in 5 years... and a coach that isn't winning (or at least showing AMAZING promise) out of the box and competing for (meaning at or near the top of our division) the conference championship in year 3 isn't part of that plan. Part of that plan of course is funding it.

(02-27-2023 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 01:02 PM)Ourland Wrote:  The conference continues to fall apart around us.

I'll take a different stance here.

The conferences around us are simply moving at a much faster pace than we seem willing to do... and often leave us behind rather than to allow us to be an anchor around their necks.

We need to be LEADERS. That doesn't by definition mean we have to spend more than everyone else OR that we have to win all the time.... It means that WE need to be the ones pushing for improvement and seeking a better situation for ourselves... and if that means staying in whatever conference we are in then fine... but if it means seeking a different affiliation then WE need to be the ones making the conference 'fall apart' for others, or to convince them to follow US to making our conference better.

We need to be the first team from CUSA or now the AAC in conversations where a 'higher' league is looking to expand... and not just the 'considered, but rejected' ones.... Because the reason we're considered is our location and our academics.... which are not functions of athletics. The reason we're mostly rejected is because of our athletic performance and fan attraction.... which are.

Yep. As soon as Rice joins, everyone else runs.

I know all about the and if's and maybe's. However, if the message wasn't clear in 1995 with the collapse of the SWC that something different had to be done (see TCU and UH), it should have been crystal as the WAC collapsed and as did CUSA. Same ole same ole ain't going to work and I really think this has been an affirmative decision as "they" know a real effort has to be made but don't want to nor had the guts to kill it. See all the fuss over KTRU when "they" killed it. Neglect and what numbers says that if you have a good enough excuse that seems plausible is much easier that to make a tough decision. "See, we really tried hard, don't you see all the money that was spent" (which includes all the fake money at 100% of the face price of scholarships).

Hope Trinity will welcome us to their conference. I'm sure we will perform at a mediocre level

What we're doing now, we should have done 20 years ago. If we had done it 20 years ago, we would be in a much better position.

We can't compete against 2003... What we CAN do is be proactive rather than reactive. I began pounding the gavel about what is essentially now 'the flight deck' literally 15 years ago. I have no problem with the refurbishment of the HRS restrooms etc, but I had what I STILL consider to be a much better idea 15+ years ago... and we STILL haven't addressed the press box and supposedly not the power issues..., though we've added a whole lot of power at the north end, plus the tennis courts... so even that story I don't really believe anymore.

Paraphrasing what others have said before... but with my own spin...

Athletics is not the most important thing we do... by a long shot... but it is perhaps BY FAR the most important outreach that we do... and if we're going to do it at all (and I think we should) then we need to do it WELL and at the HIGHEST level. Failure to do so is a detriment to the University.... and before anyone says it, the only thing worse than doing it poorly is not doing it at all. It's (the outreach and connections that athletics generates) THAT important.

(02-27-2023 08:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we're doing now, we should have done 20 years ago. If we had done it 20 years ago, we would be in a much better position.

We can't compete against 2003... What we CAN do is be proactive rather than reactive. I began pounding the gavel about what is essentially now 'the flight deck' literally 15 years ago. I have no problem with the refurbishment of the HRS restrooms etc, but I had what I STILL consider to be a much better idea 15+ years ago... and we STILL haven't addressed the press box and supposedly not the power issues..., though we've added a whole lot of power at the north end, plus the tennis courts... so even that story I don't really believe anymore.

Paraphrasing what others have said before... but with my own spin...

Athletics is not the most important thing we do... by a long shot... but it is perhaps BY FAR the most important outreach that we do... and if we're going to do it at all (and I think we should) then we need to do it WELL and at the HIGHEST level. Failure to do so is a detriment to the University.... and before anyone says it, the only thing worse than doing it poorly is not doing it at all. It's (the outreach and connections that athletics generates) THAT important.

That's right. Go all in, or get the hell out. McKinsey said that over twenty years ago.

(02-27-2023 08:13 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-27-2023 08:01 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What we're doing now, we should have done 20 years ago. If we had done it 20 years ago, we would be in a much better position.

...

Paraphrasing what others have said before... but with my own spin...

Athletics is not the most important thing we do... by a long shot... but it is perhaps BY FAR the most important outreach that we do... and if we're going to do it at all (and I think we should) then we need to do it WELL and at the HIGHEST level. Failure to do so is a detriment to the University.... and before anyone says it, the only thing worse than doing it poorly is not doing it at all. It's (the outreach and connections that athletics generates) THAT important.

Seconded. Athletics falls under University Marketing Budget. Have been saying this for decades.

That press box must be a nightmare. Do fans sit up there? I'm surprised it hasn't been condemned. Do they give tours of the stadium? I have never been in the R Room, press box, or visitor locker room on the south end. I've heard it's in awful condition. If they don't give tours, I really can't blame them.