(02-26-2018 05:41 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  I apologize for helping to hijack the thread, but I want to make one final point in response to FBO's last post (which I won't list here due to space constraints).

The problem with each sport at Rice that is not a full scholarship sport is that all other schools supplement their partial scholarship athletes with either need-based or ACADEMIC aid. Rice has need-based aid, so we need not discuss that. But, the majority of aid elsewhere is in the nature of ACADEMIC aid that is not available at Rice. Thus, other schools can, for example, add ¼ of a scholarship to ¾ academic aid. Presto: full scholarship! Or, even if it's only ½ academic aid, the student has to pay much less than a corresponding percentage would cost at Rice.

And, don't even get me started on the slots given to the so-called non-revenue sports at Rice. Even if there were 5 more student-athletes who wanted to come to Rice for books only, the administration limits how many student athletes are allowed to matriculate per year. Naturally, the full scholarship sports get as many as they need; the remainder must grovel for crumbs.

Just as an example: men's track and field, by NCAA rules, has 12.6 scholarships to be used for both track and field, as well as cross-country (no separate scholarships for XC). There are 21 events at a conference outdoor championship. Rice has just 38 athletes for indoor, outdoor and cross-country. Texas A&M, with those same 12.6 scholarships, has 61 athletes (60% more than Rice). Don't you think that gives them a huge advantage, on top of the edge they have in admissions?

You cannot give a kid athletic money AND academic money. It's either or...not both. That's illegal. Rice players are either on athletic money or need based money. There are very few athletes on academic money due to the regular students outstanding (elite) academic standing.