(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

sadly very true.

(07-01-2019 05:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:56 PM)Ourland Wrote:  Rice isn't going to come out publicly and announce a "return to the P5" campaign. That goal isn't attainable. Rice knows this better than anyone. It's honestly hard to believe that I still hear fans mention it. The end result would be failure. It'll never happen. The power conferences are full, and no one outside of them has any value. Not even the AAC can find anyone with value right now to take UCONN's place.

That comment seems really afflicted.

If truth is an affliction, so be it. By today's standard, the SWC wouldn't have been considered a power conference. During it's last twenty years, it was very weak.
We talk like we belong with the big boys because we were with them before, but we really weren't. We were a lucky private school riding the coattails of A&M, Texas, and Arkansas. They got sick of it, and who can blame them?. The money grab of modern college athletics left us in its tracks.

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.

There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.

The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.

And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isnt the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).

Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.

A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.

The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.

There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.

The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.

And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isnt the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).

Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.

A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.

The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

Actually, the inattention began in the mid-to-late 1960s.

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.

There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.

The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.

And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isnt the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).

Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.

A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.

The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

What if the '65 Mustang is sitting in the front yard and its increasingly decrepit state is dragging down the property value? Either restore it, or get it out of there, right? But occasionally changing one of the tires and some of the spark plugs on something that otherwise remains an immovable eyesore isn't a great fiduciary safeguarding of resources either.

I also don't know where you get your $750MM figure from. We don't need to build a Taj Mahal of a football stadium. We need to put better opponents in the stadium we have. Shiny facilities aren't going to fool anybody if they couldn't care less about the games taking place inside.

One of the BOT's biggest fiduciary responsibilities, as I see it, is to keep Rice in its peer group. Well, Northwestern and Duke have vaulted well past us in the rankings over the past couple decades and it's obviously had a lot to do with their high-profile visibility in sports. Vanderbilt and Notre Dame and USC are now neck-and-neck with us. This supposedly oh-so-prudent BOT is actually "betting the company" that over the long haul Rice can maintain its place despite having one of its most publicly prominent faces -- athletics -- not just completely disassociated with any peer schools but actively entwined with the schools of CUSA. Of the top 25 schools, how many are Div. I, FBS & G5? One - us. That's not a good spot to be in.

The 65 Mustang is much like the Battleship Texas (or what I do-tax consulting). Or the Astrodome for that matter. Fix it now and keep it up or it will be that much more expensive to fix it had you done it right earlier. Instead of 100 now and 50/year, 5 years later it is 500 now and 100/yr. At every point, it sure looked expensive, but do some small somethings so it looks like there is not inaction. For the Mustang, pressure wash it, paint the rust spots over, both only on the street side and hide the dripping oil. You can pretend what you are doing, but with not much looking, it is apparent it is was actually very little.

Thinking about the Rice Athletics timeline is not much different than the Battleship Texas timeline. Quite something in its day, with a tuneup in the late 80's (Bobby May to be applauded for at least getting us to competitiveness from being a doormat) but steady decline since then through neglect and lack of a real plan. There is a real concern that they can even move it out of it's berth or instead drain the berth without collapse.

(07-02-2019 01:50 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.

Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.

MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaris are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.

Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.

There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.

The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.

And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isnt the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).

Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.

A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.

The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

What if the '65 Mustang is sitting in the front yard and its increasingly decrepit state is dragging down the property value? Either restore it, or get it out of there, right? But occasionally changing one of the tires and some of the spark plugs on something that otherwise remains an immovable eyesore isn't a great fiduciary safeguarding of resources either.

I also don't know where you get your $750MM figure from. We don't need to build a Taj Mahal of a football stadium. We need to put better opponents in the stadium we have. Shiny facilities aren't going to fool anybody if they couldn't care less about the games taking place inside.

One of the BOT's biggest fiduciary responsibilities, as I see it, is to keep Rice in its peer group. Well, Northwestern and Duke have vaulted well past us in the rankings over the past couple decades and it's obviously had a lot to do with their high-profile visibility in sports. Vanderbilt and Notre Dame and USC are now neck-and-neck with us. This supposedly oh-so-prudent BOT is actually "betting the company" that over the long haul Rice can maintain its place despite having one of its most publicly prominent faces -- athletics -- not just completely disassociated with any peer schools but actively entwined with the schools of CUSA. Of the top 25 schools, how many are Div. I, FBS & G5? One - us. That's not a good spot to be in.

The two largest fiduciary duties of the BOT are intertwined. First they are responsible for both the short- and long-term financial health of the institution and achievement of the goal of preserving the institution and its resources for future generations. At the same time, governing boards have the obligation to develop and protect the quality of the institution’s academic programs and to become appropriately engaged in the oversight thereof.

You may *want* that Rice remain in its peer group is a fiduciary duty, and you may *want* that part of that 'peer group establishment' is some sort of incorporeal benefit to the concept of a 'peer group' to be 'successful' at (pick any number) (basketball, football, baseball, rowing, lacrosse, quidditch), but no, neither of those intersects in the slightest with the actual fiduciary duties on an actual Board.

What you are stating is a 'want', not an actual duty. And, a highly subjective 'want' at that. I think you are drastically overstating the case for the actual fiduciary duty in this case.

As for the 750 million -- a SWAG. Albeit it is a number that seems in line with conversations I have had with more than a couple of people. Some who were/are very much involved in the actual 'Stanford Solution' and with some on this board whom seem to have a lot more feel for the pulse on this than I do. But i will readily admit that even though it passes the smell test for me, it is definitely a SWAG at this end. I think that anything less than 500 million isnt going to be anywhere near enough, to be blunt.

I am certainly open to hearing other ideas on that price tag.

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.
Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.
MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaries are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.
Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.
There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.
The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.
And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isn't the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).
Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.
A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.
The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

The inattention actually began in the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s were mostly products of what had gone before.

(07-03-2019 07:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I personally don't care if we get invited to p5 or not... I still want to find a way to be relevant in the big 3 and right now w'ere not remotely so.
Being invited to p5 would certainly make a lot of things easier, but I think it more likely that something happens to change the dynamics entirely.
MY problem is that we aren't even trying to compete at the highest level. That isn't remotely 'Rice'-like

This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaries are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.
Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.
There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.
The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.
And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isn't the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).
Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.
A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.
The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

The inattention actually began in the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s were mostly products of what had gone before.

Fair enough. I was 8 when Nixon got impeached, so I dont think I had quite the insight into Rice athletics that you might for that era.

But, the inattention very definitely was continued throughout the 80s and 90s. I dont know if I can really describe Rice even at this point as being more than 'mildly bemused' at Rice sports overall.

Rice needs a Dave Maggard like leader, he lead the UH group to kill the end-zone facility and start the dialogue on new this and new that, it was very unpopular among faculty and staff.

(07-03-2019 08:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Fair enough. I was 8 when Nixon got impeached, so I dont think I had quite the insight into Rice athletics that you might for that era.
But, the inattention very definitely was continued throughout the 80s and 90s. I dont know if I can really describe Rice even at this point as being more than 'mildly bemused' at Rice sports overall.

OK, youngster, way to make me feel old. back.

I will agree that went on in the 80s was more like the 60s and 70s on steroids. It just got worse and worse every year, until Bobby May became AD and stabilized the situation. But Bobby basically stopped the bleeding. He didn't really implement any kind of vision for the future.

Chris del Conte tried a bit of the vision thing, but left before he got very far along. He got a break at TCU because a lot of TCU alums were ranchers' kids from west of Fort Worth who went there because it was close. And those ranches were in the heart of shale oil country. Chris once said to me that the whole TCU resurgence--both athletic and academic--was but on the Barnett Shale.

Ranger Rick pretty much killed any momentum built up under Chris, and football's falling off the table in 2009-2011 didn't help any.

(07-03-2019 08:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 07:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 01:02 AM)Ourland Wrote:  This is exactly how I feel. I see upgrades being made in facilities, and coaching salaries are up, but Rice is always so koy about it's investments in athletics. We never seem to know much about when or where money is being spent or plans are being made. Everything is held close to the vest.
Sometimes it makes me feel like they don't care, but that can't be true. I think what makes it worse is that everyone else these days are the opposite

I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.
There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.
The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.
And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isn't the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).
Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.
A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.
The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

The inattention actually began in the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s were mostly products of what had gone before.

Fair enough. I was 8 when Nixon got impeached, so I dont think I had quite the insight into Rice athletics that you might for that era.

But, the inattention very definitely was continued throughout the 80s and 90s. I dont know if I can really describe Rice even at this point as being more than 'mildly bemused' at Rice sports overall.

I remember attending a Rice/SMU football game in Dallas, and Bobby making the announcement that our cross country teams had just won the conference championship, the first conference championships in any sport for over 20 years.

(07-05-2019 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 07:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 05:40 AM)texowl2 Wrote:  I do think "they" don't care and "they" don't have the guts to kill the sickly patient. Better to let it whither on the vine, less messy.

I view it as a '65 Mustang that was found in the garage and hadnt been touched in 50 years.
There is a valid question after such a long period of decline, if the money and effort is worth to 'bring it up to snuff'.
The inattention began in the early 80's. The cost to bring it up to snuff will probably be a minimum of a 3/4 billion dollar range. That is an absolutely huge price tag, tbh.
And, has been discussed, the Trustees have a much different view (and legal requirement) for management of the hard dollars in the endowment. Were this a traditional business Board, there is a much much stronger case for making that investment going forward. That isn't the case for the Trustees of Rice (let alone any school).
Had the trustees made the steps in the 80's or 90's as did other schools, and with a far lesser dollar and relative amount at that time, this wouldnt be the issue it is today.
A traditional business can afford to 'enter the market' late at that much increased cost. That path is much, much harder to justify in the context of university trustees, and amplifies the further in time the 'decision is tabled'.
The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

The inattention actually began in the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s were mostly products of what had gone before.

Fair enough. I was 8 when Nixon got impeached, so I dont think I had quite the insight into Rice athletics that you might for that era.
But, the inattention very definitely was continued throughout the 80s and 90s. I dont know if I can really describe Rice even at this point as being more than 'mildly bemused' at Rice sports overall.

I remember attending a Rice/SMU football game in Dallas, and Bobby making the announcement that our cross country teams had just won the conference championship, the first conference championships in any sport for over 20 years.

Men's basketball in 1970, then nothing until the 1990s. We did not win a single conference championship in any sport for the decade of the 1980s, and none for the decade of the 1970s after 1970. That is a pretty dismal record of futility.

If it helps, I think we won tennis in ‘70 & ‘71.

(07-05-2019 11:13 AM)wrysal Wrote:  If it helps, I think we won tennis in ‘70 & ‘71.

Per the tennis media guide accessed at RiceOwls.com, won SWC team title in 70, 71, and 72. So I stand corrected. I was in the navy 70-74, so I missed those. Either way, neither the 70s nor the 80s were covered in much glory.

Bobby clearly turned the corner competitively and we were no longer the embarrassment across the board as from the early 70's. Had DeLoss not blown up the SWC, we might have had a fighting chance. Sadly, we declined the SEC offer and thought the WAC 16 was going to survive (question to the airport crew-how's that working out for ya?), starting the spiral to the situation today. At the end of the day, more than once, Rice neither read (or ignored) the tea leaves nor reacted to events without any sense of urgency (much like Kevin Bacon's line in Animal House "All is well").

Can't remember the quote about something about hope and prayers does not create results come to mind.

I like this discussion, but I want to be clear about what I'm saying...

We aren't trying to compete at the highest level.

It doesn't take a massive stadium or all of these other things to be competitive with Baylor and UT and Tech and Duke etc. It only takes that if you want to capitalize on the venture. Note that I'm not saying we should be top 10 in all sports. I'm saying we should be competitive at the top level.

We act like all these kids care about is bells and whistles which greatly underestimates many of them, especially many of our own greats who sure didn't do that. I mean, we can't have a dump, but I don't think any of our players give a damn about our stadium bathrooms or concessions... and if we were competitive at the top level, we'd greatly outdraw what we're doing now regardless of whom we were playing.

We need 20 guys a year in football, 2-3 in basketball and 10-15 in baseball that would rather attend Rice than other 'competitive with p5' schools.
How you define that, what that looks like can have a variety of descriptions... but it all boils down to recruiting a certain type of player... and likely GREATLY expanding our current methods.

Heck, with the best players really all going to these recruiting services... a lot of the work is already being done. We just have to find the ones who enjoy a challenge/value the education/like the big city over the college town.

What does it take to find, recruit and sign those guys? That's what we need to be spending our dollars on, and it wouldn't be 750mm. It sure might mean spending $5mm more on coaching staff and another $5mm on equipment and maintenance and recruiting. I'm betting (and I know I would) if the university put forth that sort of effort to attempt to be competitive, that in addition to higher gates, raising money for things like concessions and restrooms and locker rooms etc etc etc would get a WHOLE lot easier.


I'm going to greatly oversimplify it....
But if we simply offered scholarships to all of the 4-5 star recruits of say Tech or Arkansas that had the academic background to get into Rice and said things to them like big fish, small pond... accept a greater challenge... showed the value difference of the education... the national exposure in Houston as opposed to Lubbock etc etc etc and you did that to 50 p5 schools... and we had made it clear as a University that we intended to be competitive by say hiring a big name NFL type coach or a number of that sort of assistant staff or whatever... I'm betting we'd get a few of those guys. And when they started to win CUSA and be competitive with those bigger schools, you'd get a whole lot more of them. Offer the prestige of some of our grad programs to grad transfers whom we missed out on the first time and now have another chance.

(07-03-2019 07:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-02-2019 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The inattention began in the early 80's.
....
The problem facing Rice sports is the product of the inactions of the 80's and 90's.

The inattention actually began in the 60s and 70s. The 80s and 90s were mostly products of what had gone before.

Inattention is a recurring theme in history. Seven years ago I posted a historical analogy that seemed apt:

(11-29-2012 01:33 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Athletics is not war, nor even (Ty Cobb notwithstanding) something like a war. But the history of war provides wonderful quotations. As most of you know, in the mid to late 1930s Winston Churchill was a nearly solitary voice in Britain calling for preparedness against the growing threat from Germany. In 1936, in one of his most memorable speeches of that period, he lashed out against the aimlessness, as he saw it, of Britain's current government. The most famous paragraph is here:

Quote:The Government simply cannot make up their minds, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years -- precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britain -- for the locusts to eat. They will say to me, 'A Minister of Supply is not necessary, for all is going well.' I deny it. 'The position is satisfactory.' It is not true. 'All is proceeding according to plan.' We know what that means.

To this day, some historians refer to those crucial years when Britain idled as "the locust years".

See https://csnbbs.com/thread-603411.html

At the time, I didn't explicitly state that the analogy might apply to Rice athletic (to be honest, I thought the connection was so obvious that it did not need to be stated).