(12-07-2022 02:24 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(12-07-2022 03:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 06:56 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2022 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So we are hiring people who come in saying, winning isn't important, I'm only here for the checks?
Not buying it.
In any case, losing eventually costs people their jobs.

I don't think you realize just how dysfunctional the Rice athletic department as been.
I did a fair amount of bankruptcy work over 20 years, and you see some pretty dysfunctional organizations doing bankruptcy, but I never saw one as bad as Rice athletics.

No question it was dysfunctional for a 45+ year period. Karlgaard certainly has his negatives, but he did bring the athletic department into the 21st century. It's no longer dysfunctional. He has brought financial discipline and analytics into the fold.

So they shuffle papers better than they used to, but in the three money sports they haven't fielded a competitive team in years. I'd call that still dysfunctional, just in a different way.

Kind of like asking Mrs. Lincoln if the play was any good.

Numbers stop!

Seriously though, I have heard that things are much better within the athletics department as far as functionality is concerned. IMO, what makes us so frustrated isn't 'dysfunction,' it's Rice's refusal to go 'all in' in men's athletics, but when I really think about it, I don't want Rice to act like everyone else. I like that there are rigid parameters that aren't to be challenged. Rice does things the right way. In the end, football really doesn't matter. That fact is lost on 90% of the FBS schools.

What we need is a great coaching hire. That's the most important variable. JK must make a great hire when Bloomgren is gone. Winning is possible at Rice because we have seen it uhappen before (Bailiff). Winning will never happen as often as we like, but winning is possible.

There is no all in. What there is at best is a not quite semi sorta half ass....