(06-18-2013 09:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:24 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, that's why I think the lesson learned is that the BOT has to play a much more proactive role in dictating what needs to be done, rather than simply waiting for the AD to do his/her job and come to the BOT.

But that's very unlikely to be what actually happens. The BOT does not see its role as management of day to day operations. The expect the AD to do his/her job and bring a plan to them, to which they can then give a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I am pretty sure that they would be strongly inclined to give a thumbs up to any reasonable plan, but none has been forthcoming. It's pretty clear in whose court the ball lies. Whether anything will be done to play that ball is another matter. And with regard to the low expectations, those are pretty much internal within the department. Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse, and if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

I have just about reached the conclusion that the only way for this to happen is for a group of concerned alumni and supporters who have access to influential board members to put together the plan and sell it to those board members.

There is a middle ground to being completely hands-off and being involved to the point of day-to-day affairs. The BOT will not be involved in actually running the show, however I could see them applying some pressure and setting some deadlines/expectations to make things happen. While the BOT may be willing to approve any plan that comes their way, history has shown us that this approach is not working. Maybe they need to say "we need a plan in 6 months".

+1 on everything you said...but isn't that precisely what I said in my earlier post? That's what I mean about being more proactive vs. passive. It doesn't mean the BOT gets involved in day-to-day operations or actually helps develop the plan; rather, it means they make the development and presentation of said plan in a 6 months timeframe a requirement of the AD job and the new hire's #1 priority.

(06-18-2013 09:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:38 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 09:24 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Again, that's why I think the lesson learned is that the BOT has to play a much more proactive role in dictating what needs to be done, rather than simply waiting for the AD to do his/her job and come to the BOT.

But that's very unlikely to be what actually happens. The BOT does not see its role as management of day to day operations. The expect the AD to do his/her job and bring a plan to them, to which they can then give a thumbs up or thumbs down.

I am pretty sure that they would be strongly inclined to give a thumbs up to any reasonable plan, but none has been forthcoming. It's pretty clear in whose court the ball lies. Whether anything will be done to play that ball is another matter. And with regard to the low expectations, those are pretty much internal within the department. Losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse, and if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there.

I have just about reached the conclusion that the only way for this to happen is for a group of concerned alumni and supporters who have access to influential board members to put together the plan and sell it to those board members.

There is a middle ground to being completely hands-off and being involved to the point of day-to-day affairs. The BOT will not be involved in actually running the show, however I could see them applying some pressure and setting some deadlines/expectations to make things happen. While the BOT may be willing to approve any plan that comes their way, history has shown us that this approach is not working. Maybe they need to say "we need a plan in 6 months".

+1 on everything you said...but isn't that precisely what I said in my earlier post? That's what I mean about being more proactive vs. passive. It doesn't mean the BOT gets involved in day-to-day operations or actually helps develop the plan; rather, it means they make the development and presentation of said plan in a 6 months timeframe a requirement of the AD job and the new hire's #1 priority.

It is. I was just agreeing with your earlier point in a response to Owl69's post.

(06-18-2013 09:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  +1 on everything you said...but isn't that precisely what I said in my earlier post? That's what I mean about being more proactive vs. passive. It doesn't mean the BOT gets involved in day-to-day operations or actually helps develop the plan; rather, it means they make the development and presentation of said plan in a 6 months timeframe a requirement of the AD job and the new hire's #1 priority.

I agree that's what SHOULD happen. But that's NOT what's GOING TO happen absent a major shift in policies.

I have pretty reliable information suggesting that the willingness to develop and implement such a plan was viewed unfavorably by the committee that selected Greenspan.

(06-18-2013 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that's what SHOULD happen. But that's NOT what's GOING TO happen absent a major shift in policies.

I think we're all hoping the criteria and process for the '13 AD search will be different than the '10 AD search.

'06 must have been different than '10 so it's not like the hiring criteria and process are set in stone.

Also, I would speculate that the big contributors to the basketball facility, having seen the results of a basically hands-off approach, might want to be more involved, to protect their investment. As Walt and Antarius said, "involved" doesn't necessarily mean day-to-day, but it does mean not delegating the task of hiring the AD to a math professor.

(FTR I completely agree with Walt's last several posts, and I don't say that very often.)

I am on board with your idea for a group of alumni to present a plan, though I can assure you my name will translate to "Random Alumnus of No Particular Stature."

(06-18-2013 11:43 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that's what SHOULD happen. But that's NOT what's GOING TO happen absent a major shift in policies.

I think we're all hoping the criteria and process for the '13 AD search will be different than the '10 AD search.
'06 must have been different than '10 so it's not like the hiring criteria and process are set in stone.
Also, I would speculate that the big contributors to the basketball facility, having seen the results of a basically hands-off approach, might want to be more involved, to protect their investment. As Walt and Antarius said, "involved" doesn't necessarily mean day-to-day, but it does mean not delegating the task of hiring the AD to a math professor.
(FTR I completely agree with Walt's last several posts, and I don't say that very often.)
I am on board with your idea for a group of alumni to present a plan, though I can assure you my name will translate to "Random Alumnus of No Particular Stature."

I am quite certain that the '13 process will differ from the '10 process, at least in some respects. I'm much less certain that those differences will result in a more appropriate outcome.

I agree that certain things SHOULD happen. Whether they WILL happen or not is not at all clear.

(06-18-2013 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:43 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that's what SHOULD happen. But that's NOT what's GOING TO happen absent a major shift in policies.

I think we're all hoping the criteria and process for the '13 AD search will be different than the '10 AD search.
'06 must have been different than '10 so it's not like the hiring criteria and process are set in stone.
Also, I would speculate that the big contributors to the basketball facility, having seen the results of a basically hands-off approach, might want to be more involved, to protect their investment. As Walt and Antarius said, "involved" doesn't necessarily mean day-to-day, but it does mean not delegating the task of hiring the AD to a math professor.
(FTR I completely agree with Walt's last several posts, and I don't say that very often.)
I am on board with your idea for a group of alumni to present a plan, though I can assure you my name will translate to "Random Alumnus of No Particular Stature."

I am quite certain that the '13 process will differ from the '10 process, at least in some respects. I'm much less certain that those differences will result in a more appropriate outcome.

I agree that certain things SHOULD happen. Whether they WILL happen or not is not at all clear.

I think the importance of Bobby Tudor as Board chair cannot be overemphasized. In ~ 6 months since his being named, we now have RG out. Someone does not donate say , ~ 6 million for an athletic program, and not care about results.

(06-18-2013 02:56 PM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:43 AM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I agree that's what SHOULD happen. But that's NOT what's GOING TO happen absent a major shift in policies.

I think we're all hoping the criteria and process for the '13 AD search will be different than the '10 AD search.
'06 must have been different than '10 so it's not like the hiring criteria and process are set in stone.
Also, I would speculate that the big contributors to the basketball facility, having seen the results of a basically hands-off approach, might want to be more involved, to protect their investment. As Walt and Antarius said, "involved" doesn't necessarily mean day-to-day, but it does mean not delegating the task of hiring the AD to a math professor.
(FTR I completely agree with Walt's last several posts, and I don't say that very often.)
I am on board with your idea for a group of alumni to present a plan, though I can assure you my name will translate to "Random Alumnus of No Particular Stature."

I am quite certain that the '13 process will differ from the '10 process, at least in some respects. I'm much less certain that those differences will result in a more appropriate outcome.

I agree that certain things SHOULD happen. Whether they WILL happen or not is not at all clear.

I think the importance of Bobby Tudor as Board chair cannot be overemphasized. In ~ 6 months since his being named, we now have RG out. Someone does not donate say , ~ 6 million for an athletic program, and not care about results.

Bobby doesn't assume his BOT chair post until July 1st, the start of the new fiscal year. Having said that, he has been making the rounds at Advisory Board meetings and the like for the past several months-- talking to active alumni and gathering input/feedback/concerns.

I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

The BOT is well aware of the positive PR and financial (endowment, annual fund) impacts of having successful athletic programs. This was emphasized in the McKinsey study, but was known internally from seeing the dramatic spike in both applications and gift giving in the years immediately following our national championhip run in baseball, and continuing through 2008, during which period we went to Omaha five of seven seasons. They are also fully committed (as is Leebron) to keeping us at the D-1 level. The issue as many have already stated is one of revenues (or lack thereof) and how to overcome the current, very significant subsidy given to the athletic department to cover their annual budgetary deficit. It's why an action-oriented, revenue increasing plan is an imperative if anything is going to change.

(06-18-2013 08:46 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

The BOT is well aware of the positive PR and financial (endowment, annual fund) impacts of having successful athletic programs. This was emphasized in the McKinsey study, but was known internally from seeing the dramatic spike in both applications and gift giving in the years immediately following our national championhip run in baseball, and continuing through 2008, during which period we went to Omaha five of seven seasons. They are also fully committed (as is Leebron) to keeping us at the D-1 level. The issue as many have already stated is one of revenues (or lack thereof) and how to overcome the current, very significant subsidy given to the athletic department to cover their annual budgetary deficit. It's why an action-oriented, revenue increasing plan is an imperative if anything is going to change.

To this point, see the following article in the Houston Chronicle re the financial impact from Manziel's Heisman:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...611233.php

Specifically--"Over four months Manziel became the most celebrated Aggies athlete in history, and A&M has said the school expects to net about $250 million based on his winning the Heisman."

While that may be an exaggeration, how far would the real number offset future athletic cost of the Rice program if it occured within the hedges.

(06-20-2013 12:20 PM)ricex Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:46 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

The BOT is well aware of the positive PR and financial (endowment, annual fund) impacts of having successful athletic programs. This was emphasized in the McKinsey study, but was known internally from seeing the dramatic spike in both applications and gift giving in the years immediately following our national championhip run in baseball, and continuing through 2008, during which period we went to Omaha five of seven seasons. They are also fully committed (as is Leebron) to keeping us at the D-1 level. The issue as many have already stated is one of revenues (or lack thereof) and how to overcome the current, very significant subsidy given to the athletic department to cover their annual budgetary deficit. It's why an action-oriented, revenue increasing plan is an imperative if anything is going to change.

To this point, see the following article in the Houston Chronicle re the financial impact from Manziel's Heisman:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...611233.php

Specifically--"Over four months Manziel became the most celebrated Aggies athlete in history, and A&M has said the school expects to net about $250 million based on his winning the Heisman."

While that may be an exaggeration, how far would the real number offset future athletic cost of the Rice program if it occured within the hedges.

Last night the ESPN crawl reported that Manziel was looking to transfer prior to last season. Yesterday he also tweated that he could not wait to get out of College Station. That tweat was withdrawn.

I wonder if all is not well in College Station opening an opportunity for the first game of the 2013 season.

Maybe Manziel should have accepted his other Div 1 football offer that would have allowed him to also play baseball. If he did, he might be in Omaha right now.

(06-20-2013 01:08 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  I wonder if all is not well in College Station opening an opportunity for the first game of the 2013 season.

An opportunity for the MOB, at the very least. (Are they going to be allowed onto the sacred field for the game?)

(06-20-2013 12:20 PM)ricex Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:46 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

(06-18-2013 04:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I hope that Bobby will make a tremendous difference. But I don't think most of you realize the extent of the organizational inertia that he will be fighting on this issue.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

The BOT is well aware of the positive PR and financial (endowment, annual fund) impacts of having successful athletic programs. This was emphasized in the McKinsey study, but was known internally from seeing the dramatic spike in both applications and gift giving in the years immediately following our national championhip run in baseball, and continuing through 2008, during which period we went to Omaha five of seven seasons. They are also fully committed (as is Leebron) to keeping us at the D-1 level. The issue as many have already stated is one of revenues (or lack thereof) and how to overcome the current, very significant subsidy given to the athletic department to cover their annual budgetary deficit. It's why an action-oriented, revenue increasing plan is an imperative if anything is going to change.

To this point, see the following article in the Houston Chronicle re the financial impact from Manziel's Heisman:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...611233.php

Specifically--"Over four months Manziel became the most celebrated Aggies athlete in history, and A&M has said the school expects to net about $250 million based on his winning the Heisman."

While that may be an exaggeration, how far would the real number offset future athletic cost of the Rice program if it occured within the hedges.

I think Johnny Football doesn't mesh with the "Aggie Tradition" mindset. Outside of playing Football he doesn't really want to be there. He will be going Pro at the first opportunity.

And I would really like to see how the $250 Million figure was calculated.

I think $250 million is a drastic overstatement. And I would imagine that demographics and other factors are such that aTm would derive more benefit than would Rice from a similar situation.

But even a tiny fraction of that would be incredibly meaningful.

(06-20-2013 03:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think $250 million is a drastic overstatement. And I would imagine that demographics and other factors are such that aTm would derive more benefit than would Rice from a similar situation.

But even a tiny fraction of that would be incredibly meaningful.

When people argue for paying college athletes, they always bring up some amount that the athlete has presumably earned for the University. I wonder how much of the $250M they think should be paid to Manziel as a commission?

(06-20-2013 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When people argue for paying college athletes, they always bring up some amount that the athlete has presumably earned for the University. I wonder how much of the $250M they think should be paid to Manziel as a commission?

I'm sure that he'd settle for 5%.

(06-20-2013 01:08 PM)Memphis Owl Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 12:20 PM)ricex Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 08:46 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 07:42 PM)3-OwlsInTheNest Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 06:34 PM)75src Wrote:  Athletics is about the only field that Rice will tolerate mediocraty. Maybe some fools think it is prestigeous to have bad athletics.

Try this frame, which will lead back to prestige and your point about some fools. Rice has been, traditionally, media stupid. In many respects it remains media stupid. Leebron has tried to change this, though, in my opinion, he remains fixated on dying media. But that hot shot is a subject for another thread. Athletic success -- particularly if we maintain Rice's scholastic standards-- is smart media. Like, prestigious PR you cannot buy. Would the BOT understand this PR argument? I don't know. Some of you know the BOT members. In one of your elite tete a tetes, lay this line of analysis on'em.

The BOT is well aware of the positive PR and financial (endowment, annual fund) impacts of having successful athletic programs. This was emphasized in the McKinsey study, but was known internally from seeing the dramatic spike in both applications and gift giving in the years immediately following our national championhip run in baseball, and continuing through 2008, during which period we went to Omaha five of seven seasons. They are also fully committed (as is Leebron) to keeping us at the D-1 level. The issue as many have already stated is one of revenues (or lack thereof) and how to overcome the current, very significant subsidy given to the athletic department to cover their annual budgetary deficit. It's why an action-oriented, revenue increasing plan is an imperative if anything is going to change.

To this point, see the following article in the Houston Chronicle re the financial impact from Manziel's Heisman:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/a...611233.php

Specifically--"Over four months Manziel became the most celebrated Aggies athlete in history, and A&M has said the school expects to net about $250 million based on his winning the Heisman."

While that may be an exaggeration, how far would the real number offset future athletic cost of the Rice program if it occured within the hedges.

Last night the ESPN crawl reported that Manziel was looking to transfer prior to last season. Yesterday he also tweated that he could not wait to get out of College Station. That tweat was withdrawn.

I wonder if all is not well in College Station opening an opportunity for the first game of the 2013 season.

Maybe Manziel should have accepted his other Div 1 football offer that would have allowed him to also play baseball. If he did, he might be in Omaha right now.

Apparently the tweet was in regards to a ticket he got for his car being parked the wrong way in front of his house and for having too dark of a tint on his front window, all the while he was fishing in Port Aransas.

http://deadspin.com/johnny-manziel-was-a...-514442861

(06-20-2013 03:56 PM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 03:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When people argue for paying college athletes, they always bring up some amount that the athlete has presumably earned for the University. I wonder how much of the $250M they think should be paid to Manziel as a commission?

I'm sure that he'd settle for 5%.

And at that point Manziel in ineligible and ATM goes on Probation.