+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+----- Thread: Karlgaard / AD Thread (/thread-918259.html)
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - GoodOwl - 05-05-2021 06:28 PM
(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 11:48 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 07:23 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: Just one man's opinion, but under JK the athletic department is being run just fine, and the best it's been run in 50+ years. And the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) is the best it's ever been. Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.
The issue is the vision and leadership, particularly of the men's programs.
Wondering what percent of those two would you weight each for an AD then?
That's hard to say. Certainly he should be held accountable for the dismal performance of the men's sports and, especially, for overseeing the disgraceful and precipitous collapse of our once great baseball program (for which he played a leading role). However, by the same token, he should get credit for the unprecedented success of almost every women's sports program. More to the point, JK is directly responsible for turning around a long disfunctional athletic department. How you weigh the grade is up to interpretation.
Okay, fair enough.
But if we could have the exact reverse of the current situation, i.e.:
a) unprecedented success of the top 3 Men's sports programs (football, basketball, baseball),
b) coupled with dismal performance of the women's sports and most other lesser men's sports,
c) as well as vision and leadership being just fine, particularly of the men's program
d) coupled with how the athletic department runs an issue
e) along with a the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) not being so great Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.
Now, I get that all those together might not be exactly compatible with unprecedented success in top 3 men's sports (Football, basketball, baseball) but I think you get my question; would you be happier with the reverse of what we have going on in athletics now?
Interesting question. The obvious answer would be, yes, as unprecedented success of the big 3 men's sports would position us strongly for admission into a P5 conference, with all the benefits that that would entail. Having said that, if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
Thanks, Walt. I'll agree that both would be preferable. And as the Big 3 men's program drives the bus, both financially and attendance-wise (well, maybe not so much at Rice, but theoretically-speaking), with unprecedented success in those 3, for any reasonable length of time, the funding to then go and "fix" what might be wrong with the other lesser sports would finally be there (again, theoretically as this is Rice and the history strongly suggests many don't like funding athletics success.)
*side-note on the Big 3 mens' and unprecedented success: where for Baseball, that would mean multiple NCAA Div I National Championships! As the current AD and admin seem to have rather unceremoniously booted the only man to ever do that while a Head Coach at Rice (to put it mildly), it does seem even less than likely. BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway? Even Castro and Chavez eventually moved on. Sigh.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - mebehutchi - 05-05-2021 06:54 PM
(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 11:48 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: Wondering what percent of those two would you weight each for an AD then?
That's hard to say. Certainly he should be held accountable for the dismal performance of the men's sports and, especially, for overseeing the disgraceful and precipitous collapse of our once great baseball program (for which he played a leading role). However, by the same token, he should get credit for the unprecedented success of almost every women's sports program. More to the point, JK is directly responsible for turning around a long disfunctional athletic department. How you weigh the grade is up to interpretation.
Okay, fair enough.
But if we could have the exact reverse of the current situation, i.e.:
a) unprecedented success of the top 3 Men's sports programs (football, basketball, baseball),
b) coupled with dismal performance of the women's sports and most other lesser men's sports,
c) as well as vision and leadership being just fine, particularly of the men's program
d) coupled with how the athletic department runs an issue
e) along with a the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) not being so great Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.
Now, I get that all those together might not be exactly compatible with unprecedented success in top 3 men's sports (Football, basketball, baseball) but I think you get my question; would you be happier with the reverse of what we have going on in athletics now?
Interesting question. The obvious answer would be, yes, as unprecedented success of the big 3 men's sports would position us strongly for admission into a P5 conference, with all the benefits that that would entail. Having said that, if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
Thanks, Walt. I'll agree that both would be preferable. And as the Big 3 men's program drives the bus, both financially and attendance-wise (well, maybe not so much at Rice, but theoretically-speaking), with unprecedented success in those 3, for any reasonable length of time, the funding to then go and "fix" what might be wrong with the other lesser sports would finally be there (again, theoretically as this is Rice and the history strongly suggests many don't like funding athletics success.)
*side-note on the Big 3 mens' and unprecedented success: where for Baseball, that would mean multiple NCAA Div I National Championships! As the current AD and admin seem to have rather unceremoniously booted the only man to ever do that while a Head Coach at Rice (to put it mildly), it does seem even less than likely. BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway? Even Castro and Chavez eventually moved on. Sigh.
Hard to blame the man. If I could live in a $15 million crib for free and walk to work at my $1.5 million a year job where I took summers off to vacation in the south of France while driving results for the institution that were fair at best I'd do it even if it meant toeing and encouraging traditional academic fault line. I could in fact be bought for much less. Long live the Leebron revolution!
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Tomball Owl - 05-05-2021 08:11 PM
(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway?
He’s 66. Shares a birthday with Abe Lincoln and my Dad - February 12th.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Almadenmike - 05-05-2021 08:53 PM
(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ... if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
SID = ?? Sports Information Director?
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - bigowlsfan - 05-06-2021 07:56 AM
(05-05-2021 08:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway?
He’s 66. Shares a birthday with Abe Lincoln and my Dad - February 12th.
I would rank Leebron a distant third in that group.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - illiniowl - 05-06-2021 03:12 PM
(05-05-2021 08:53 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ... if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
SID = ?? Sports Information Director?
He meant SIG (Sports Interest Group), not SID. SIGs are the fundraising arms of the various sports.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Almadenmike - 05-06-2021 03:51 PM
(05-06-2021 03:12 PM)illiniowl Wrote:(05-05-2021 08:53 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ... if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
SID = ?? Sports Information Director?
He meant SIG (Sports Interest Group), not SID. SIGs are the fundraising arms of the various sports.
Ahhh. Thanks for the correction. I'm glad that Rice Athletics have adapted a venerable high-tech acronym to good use for Owl sports.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - waltgreenberg - 05-06-2021 03:51 PM
(05-06-2021 03:12 PM)illiniowl Wrote:(05-05-2021 08:53 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote: ... if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
SID = ?? Sports Information Director?
He meant SIG (Sports Interest Group), not SID. SIGs are the fundraising arms of the various sports.
Yes. Thank you.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - GoodOwl - 05-07-2021 12:12 PM
(05-05-2021 08:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway?
He’s 66. Shares a birthday with Abe Lincoln and my Dad - February 12th.
Thank you. So...retirement age?
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - georgewebb - 05-07-2021 03:46 PM
(05-07-2021 12:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 08:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway?
He’s 66. Shares a birthday with Abe Lincoln and my Dad - February 12th.
Thank you. So...retirement age?
Abe Lincoln would be much older than retirement age!
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Tomball Owl - 05-07-2021 04:05 PM
(05-07-2021 03:46 PM)georgewebb Wrote:(05-07-2021 12:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 08:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(05-05-2021 06:28 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: BTW, how old is Leebron, anyway?
He’s 66. Shares a birthday with Abe Lincoln and my Dad - February 12th.
Thank you. So...retirement age?
Abe Lincoln would be much older than retirement age!
As would my Dad. He would have been 100 this year.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - jhruzek - 05-08-2021 12:05 PM
So if JK leaves, who would you replace him with? Does Bobby Williams Jr have enough experience for the job. Seems like Sam is doing well under his leadership. Rice Alumn so that box is checked.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 05-08-2021 01:45 PM
(05-08-2021 12:05 PM)jhruzek Wrote: So if JK leaves, who would you replace him with? Does Bobby Williams Jr have enough experience for the job. Seems like Sam is doing well under his leadership. Rice Alum so that box is checked.
I am fairly certain that Bobby 1) has plenty of experience, 2) would do a marvelous job, and 3) has absolutely zero interest.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 05-08-2021 05:21 PM
By the way, SHSU football just advanced to the FCS championship game (FCS played a spring season), coached by K.C. Keeler, who was on my short list when Bailiff was terminated.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Tomball Owl - 05-08-2021 05:28 PM
(05-08-2021 05:21 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: By the way, SHSU football just advanced to the FCS championship game (FCS played a spring season), coached by K.C. Keeler, who was on my short list when Bailiff was terminated.
SHSU came back from 21 and 17 point deficits in the 2H to win the game.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - westsidewolf1989 - 05-08-2021 06:54 PM
Th next AD needs to have a track record of successful coaching hires. Not just a successful track record of asking other people for their money.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Texasowl - 05-08-2021 07:32 PM
You have to get rid of Lebron also if you want to make any meaningful changes to the athletic program or you just spinning your wheels. Firing the AD and bringing in a new AD will not change anything. The current AD has done a great job with women sports.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - 75src - 05-08-2021 10:51 PM
And why would he have zero interest?
(05-08-2021 01:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(05-08-2021 12:05 PM)jhruzek Wrote: So if JK leaves, who would you replace him with? Does Bobby Williams Jr have enough experience for the job. Seems like Sam is doing well under his leadership. Rice Alum so that box is checked.
I am fairly certain that Bobby 1) has plenty of experience, 2) would do a marvelous job, and 3) has absolutely zero interest.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Hambone10 - 05-10-2021 10:48 AM
(05-05-2021 04:03 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:22 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 12:02 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:(05-05-2021 11:48 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:(05-05-2021 07:23 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote: Just one man's opinion, but under JK the athletic department is being run just fine, and the best it's been run in 50+ years. And the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) is the best it's ever been. Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.
The issue is the vision and leadership, particularly of the men's programs.
Wondering what percent of those two would you weight each for an AD then?
That's hard to say. Certainly he should be held accountable for the dismal performance of the men's sports and, especially, for overseeing the disgraceful and precipitous collapse of our once great baseball program (for which he played a leading role). However, by the same token, he should get credit for the unprecedented success of almost every women's sports program. More to the point, JK is directly responsible for turning around a long disfunctional athletic department. How you weigh the grade is up to interpretation.
Okay, fair enough.
But if we could have the exact reverse of the current situation, i.e.:
a) unprecedented success of the top 3 Men's sports programs (football, basketball, baseball),
b) coupled with dismal performance of the women's sports and most other lesser men's sports,
c) as well as vision and leadership being just fine, particularly of the men's program
d) coupled with how the athletic department runs an issue
e) along with a the focus on the student-athlete (including academic tutoring/mentoring, scholarship and career development) not being so great Ditto operational budgets of the various sport programs.
Now, I get that all those together might not be exactly compatible with unprecedented success in top 3 men's sports (Football, basketball, baseball) but I think you get my question; would you be happier with the reverse of what we have going on in athletics now?
Interesting question. The obvious answer would be, yes, as unprecedented success of the big 3 men's sports would position us strongly for admission into a P5 conference, with all the benefits that that would entail. Having said that, if not for the recent success of our women's programs, I would never have fallen in love with volleyball and women's basketball, for which I'm now a season ticketholder and SID supporter.
Women's sports... based on the value of our scholarship vs our athletic peer group (not even close) and the lack of a massive potential payday at the end 'fit' us better than men's. The value of losing in p5 vs winning in g5 is not only less, but is actually a disadvantage as opposed to an advantage. The same thing happened in Baseball... because winning your conference got you to the tournament... and once in the tournament, anything could happen. It's also why some small schools from small conferences do well in basketball... but of course, now you're talking about 1 and done's... which isn't consistent with our academic model... and the millions guaranteed in a two round draft vs often much less money, lots of rounds and years of 'development' in baseball is entirely different. Wayne effectively leveraged this... and women's coaches are as well. Basketball hasn't done it... and Football can't (no tournament).
So I give Joe credit for recognizing this reality, but I struggle to put a lot of significance to it.... To me its like Rice sports winning the SAT bowl. It's something Rice MAY be able to do without even trying, but certainly could if we simply decided to. The key thing here is to DO something with this (like leverage it to a better conference) and not only haven't we (at least not yet)... but the handling of baseball alone all but negates that... especially in that I can see at least some (if not a whole lot of) credit going to Stacy for women's sports, and Baseball lies entirely on JK.
So if nothing else, Joe needs to hire a new/better director of Men's athletics (or empower someone else on his staff).
Joe is not remotely bereft of skills.... and is clearly HIGHLY skilled in a number of important areas... and MAYBE this is an area where the man at the top doesn't need to be the one in charge of Football operations... MAYBE this is an opportunity to take an AD from an FCS type school as opposed to a BCS type school, because our marketing is perhaps much more like FCS than BCS.... HOWEVER....
Revenues are our issue. If we had more revenues, we could continue to invest in women's sports. We could continue to invest in and improve upon the academic areas... we could invest in more alumni outreach and AD staff. The amount of revenue that women's sports can generate is HIGHLY limited... and the costs really aren't measurably different from (the same) men's.... meaning I think the top women's basketball coach makes $2.4mm. The top men's coach certainly makes more... but they also make a multiple of the revenue of women's.... a LARGE multiple.
SO we STILL need to increase revenues.... and the common theme seems to be to get it from alumni donations rather than to 'earn' it with the product on the field in at least the top 2 men's sports.... those in the best position to increase revenues.
I constantly go back to the idea that 'what everyone else does' doesn't work for us. We don't own our city like say Marshall does... We don't even own West U. Why does someone who didn't attend Rice want to attend a game at our stadium? We likely aren't playing THEIR school... We don't have a great experience... No great food, no immersive experience... I've made LOTS of suggestions on this and for a decade, invested my OWN time and money into it... I once again go back to food trucks on the concourse... free wifi and charging stations in the stadium... a charging rail/cocktails tables at the top of the concourse... TVs everywhere... a video board capturing other games... a kids area... turning HRS into a sports bar open before and after the game... build a 'new' press box (and suites) in front of the 'old' one... It could be made out of aluminum... use solar and/or wind and some batteries... maybe technology developed on the campus to extend recycled lead acid batteries or something. We have the space. Back-feed the campus during the week. I could go on and on (and have, numerous times). All of these things by the way could also apply to women's sports... which might not make the same revenue, but could still improve the experience and thus our profile and ability to continue to improve.
RE: Karlgaard / AD Thread - Owl 69/70/75 - 05-10-2021 05:42 PM
(05-08-2021 10:51 PM)75src Wrote: And why would he have zero interest?
Because he has a better deal at Sam. He has enthusiastic support from his president and they are on an upward trajectory.