(02-02-2022 03:23 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 02:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-02-2022 10:08 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Some of you are actually suggesting that legacy athletes should be admitted and given athletic scholarships because they are legacies, whether they are the best athletic talent attainable or not, and I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.

Who did that? I suspect there are difference of opinion about how talented some of these guys are, but I don't think the bold is true at all. I certainly haven't spoken about athletic scholarships at all, unless the coach wants the player a lot. I've talked about leveraging academic/need based scholarships to guys who might also be interested in athletics to a varying degree. I think some have suggested that these other guys are better than some of the guys we're getting, but that's a subjective measure. We 'recruit' walk-ons every year... and track recruits pole vaulters to become sprinters.

Quote:The university already considers extracurricular activities, etc in the admissions process - your argument is that extracurriculars should be given more weight in the admissions process? I guess there's a case that can be made for that. If you're suggesting that their athletic talent be given consideration in the context of playing for Rice, that process exists - athletic recruiting.

Only as an athletic scholarship... and specifically only as a football athletic scholarship for men, since you don't get fulls in Baseball or Track and only a small number in basketball.

What I'm suggesting is that LEGACIES play a larger part in admissions... mostly because of the connection that we have with the family already... and that athletics be involved in it as they are (at least) with recruiting walk-ons, especially from athletic legacies because of the investment we've already made in that family. I'm not suggesting they offer a football (or track) scholarship to a guy who doesn't fit the need, but I AM suggesting that they be involved in recruiting a student who is interested in playing those sports at Rice, who has established ties to the University through their parent(s) and are otherwise qualified.... which allows us to leverage our endowment for the benefit of athletics... while also offering a tie back to the endowment as a legacy.

I added music to be fair and broad... I don't know that music helps especially with recruiting minority students but I'm open to those situations where it would. Even things like being charitable are great qualities, but they don't necessarily bond you to a University the way being an athlete does... 'wearing the colors'. Of course not all people bond, but by and large, athletes do.

If Rice encourages legacies with athletic ability to apply, with the obvious intent of letting them walk onto teams, then offers them non-athletic scholarships; then the university will then, at best, be operating in a grey area of the NCAA rules, and Rice just isn't going to do that.

There are no NCAA rules about admitting a musician specifically because they are good at music, and then offering them an academic scholarship.

Need-based financial aid is a different story. That angle could be worked, now that the university has raised the automatic qualification thresholds. This is already being done in sports with partial scholarships, like baseball.

Here is a pretty good summary about academic and athletic scholarships as it pertains to the NCAA.
https://stacksports.captainu.com/combini...olarships/

Football would be a different beast because there are no partial athletic scholarships in FBS. As such, an admitted student who walks on could have a mixture of merit based and need based institutional financial aid that could cover the full cost. Furthermore, that student would be able to obtain money from NIL. So, in the case of football, a student with an academic record strong enough to be admitted can receive a very nice scholarship package within the NCAA requirements.

This arrangement has a few advantages for Rice. 1) The academic scholarship can be for 4 years AND is only in place as long as the student is enrolled AT Rice and as long as specified academic achievement is maintained. In other words, the student-athlete has to be a good student and has to stay at Rice. Therefore, They would be less likely to enter the portal and leave. Likewise, their scholarship isn't dependent on athletic participation and they don't have to play football if they don't want to. 2)Rice will significantly benefit if they are better than expected athletically and carries no risk of a wasted athletic scholarship if their play is worse than expected.

I am not seeing much risk with a whole bunch of benefit. The risk-reward seems to be heavily skewed to one side.

It also has the benefit of covering the errors in player evaluation by the coaching staff. Granted, even if these exceptional players fall in their lap, there is no guarantee that they will be utilized properly. It gives the legacy athlete a chance to compete and their family a chance to give Rice something of value in return. And the academic side of Rice is using it's clout to improve the quality and quantity of athletic talent to increase the performance of the athletic team.

I have a difficult time understanding why many feel that college football coaches are infallible and that their choices are always the best choice for Rice. For those of us who have been exposed to the process, we have seen first hand just how incredibly poor these choices can be and how incredibly flawed their reasoning and logic can be.