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

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

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

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

Rice does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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