Making this thread to supplant the 'he's gone' chapter previously tacked up.

Haven’t seen any potential candidates.

IMO, we need someone who is 1. pragmatic and 2. a fundraiser. In my assessment, these were Tommy’s best attributes (and Karlgaard’s flaws). Rice Athletics chews up and spits out idealists and theoretical thinkers. We need someone who will accept the constraints for what they are and commit to achieving what is realistic.

Tommy appeared to understand we’d not be great at Basketball in the near future, so we cheaped out on Lanier and never pushed our chips into the middle of the table in the portal. Plus, he avoided ever investing heavily in basketball facilities (Tudor has been due for a face-lift for years).

In football, considering our academic and financial restrictions, Tommy saw we’d have to find a cheap, unusual path to relevance. Abell’s gun choice was a sensible choice, even if it doesn’t eventually pan out. The process was good. It is a realistic path to bowl wins without destroying the bank.

Pierce is obviously a home-run so far. And he is as pragmatic as it gets.

I just hope the new AD can keep the momentum going on the Gateway project and will be as disciplined with directing resources as Tommy was.

And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

(08-06-2026 09:22 AM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I spent 10 mins trying to figure out who we hired named "Hunt"....

(08-06-2026 12:04 PM)austinbirds Wrote:  I spent 10 mins trying to figure out who we hired named "Hunt"....

(08-06-2026 12:04 PM)austinbirds Wrote:  I spent 10 mins trying to figure out who we hired named "Hunt"....

Ethan Hunt

IMO IT DOES NOT MATTER

Rice hasn’t been able to get out of its own way forever. Tommy was ok, but really just an average guy who looked exceptional because of the absurdly idiotic people he followed. At the end of the day whoever they pick will answer to the same people who have screwed over Rice athletics for years, Bucky, Bobby and all their inflated egos.

Don’t forget that the only person who won here was Wayne and then those two and king Joe chased him off while the sniveling former President cowered under his desk. They honestly believed that Football and men’s basketball would flourish if baseball could be made to be less important. Well they killed baseball and how is the rest working out for you? Can you imagine how much better Pierce would be if he didn’t inherit a complete **** show.



flourish here if base ball was

(08-06-2026 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:22 AM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

(08-06-2026 02:43 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:22 AM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

Revenue sharing works if there's revenue to share. If more revenue is allocated to player compensation, then there's less for something else. That's where NIL money comes in, and Rice needs much more. You say Lanier was a cost-conscious hire - ok, then, if there's not enough money for a coaching hire, then there'll be even less if some is diverted to paying players. Trying to do it all on insufficient revenue is a zero-sum game. Donors have to help.

(08-06-2026 03:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 02:43 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:22 AM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

Revenue sharing works if there's revenue to share. If more revenue is allocated to player compensation, then there's less for something else. That's where NIL money comes in, and Rice needs much more. You say Lanier was a cost-conscious hire - ok, then, if there's not enough money for a coaching hire, then there'll be even less if some is diverted to paying players. Trying to do it all on insufficient revenue is a zero-sum game. Donors have to help.

Not sure what point you are making. Obviously the money for baseball will have to come from somewhere else. We should be directing funds towards baseball and away from other sports. Thats exactly my point. I’m okay with being cost-conscious on basketball if it lets us get better at baseball (which is less expensive in an absolute sense and more likely to actually result in meaningful success).

Lanier point was literally just pointing out that Tommy appeared to understand this. It never seemed like basketball was a first or second priority to him. The next AD needs to understand this too, and given baseball’s upward trend, continue to focus the resources there, IMO.

A simple thought experiment illustrates my point:

Would anyone NOT be willing to lose 4-5 extra basketball games a year, if we won 7-10 extra baseball game’s each season and made a regional every year? Would we not consider the next AD a huge success if Football saw marginal improvements (Abell wins 6-7 games a season) and Baseball got back to being in the regional host conversation? Who would honestly care that basketball became the worst instead of the 4th worst in the AAC, given that we had a competent football team in the fall and a nationally relevant baseball team in the Spring?

(08-06-2026 03:36 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 03:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 02:43 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:22 AM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  And one more thought, any candidate should really be committed to continuing to re-develop a successful baseball program.

I’d expect it’s the #1 or #2 most important sport to most of our fans/donors, despite it being significantly less cost-prohibitive to improve at compared to football and basketball. (I’d expect it’s 4th most expensive, behind football, basketball, and women’s basketball). Plus, Pierce is the most accomplished coach we have on campus.

Even a modest re-direction of the football/basketball budget towards baseball would go a massive way. What buys 2 extra wins in basketball might buy 8 in baseball. And 2 extra wins in Basketball still has us missing the NIT, but 8 in baseball might have us hosting a regional again.

Obviously, football pays the bills, but baseball is our best realistic chance to return to relevance in anything people care about and have exciting, nationally meaningful postseason play for our students and fans to see.

??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

Revenue sharing works if there's revenue to share. If more revenue is allocated to player compensation, then there's less for something else. That's where NIL money comes in, and Rice needs much more. You say Lanier was a cost-conscious hire - ok, then, if there's not enough money for a coaching hire, then there'll be even less if some is diverted to paying players. Trying to do it all on insufficient revenue is a zero-sum game. Donors have to help.

Not sure what point you are making. Obviously the money for baseball will have to come from somewhere else. We should be directing funds towards baseball and away from other sports. Thats exactly my point. I’m okay with being cost-conscious on basketball if it lets us get better at baseball (which is less expensive in an absolute sense and more likely to actually result in meaningful success).

Lanier point was literally just pointing out that Tommy appeared to understand this. It never seemed like basketball was a first or second priority to him. The next AD needs to understand this too, and given baseball’s upward trend, continue to focus the resources there, IMO.

A simple thought experiment illustrates my point:

Would anyone NOT be willing to lose 4-5 extra basketball games a year, if we won 7-10 extra baseball game’s each season and made a regional every year? Would we not consider the next AD a huge success if Football saw marginal improvements (Abell wins 6-7 games a season) and Baseball got back to being in the regional host conversation? Who would honestly care that basketball became the worst instead of the 4th worst in the AAC, given that we had a competent football team in the fall and a nationally relevant baseball team in the Spring?

Using 2026 as a baseline, we don't even need 7-10 wins to make a regional in baseball. If we had gone 42-17 this past season, we would've been on the verge of hosting, forget qualifying.

We didn't make a regional this year because we got swept at home vs. Memphis and swept on the road @USC. Go 2-1 vs. Memphis and steal one in LA and our RPI would've been in the high forties and we would've had a first round bye in the conference tourney.

I have confidence the President will find a great AD replacement.

(08-06-2026 04:53 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 03:36 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 03:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 02:43 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 09:47 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ??? The baseball budget + the RBI Club funding is just fine. What's needed to take the next step is NIL money.

BTW, we didn't go cheap with Lanier. He was a proven commodity who had coached SMU to back-to-back 20-win seasons. Again, the problem here was lack of NIL funding and, in MBB in particular, you cannot compete on the recuiting trail without it.

I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

Revenue sharing works if there's revenue to share. If more revenue is allocated to player compensation, then there's less for something else. That's where NIL money comes in, and Rice needs much more. You say Lanier was a cost-conscious hire - ok, then, if there's not enough money for a coaching hire, then there'll be even less if some is diverted to paying players. Trying to do it all on insufficient revenue is a zero-sum game. Donors have to help.

Not sure what point you are making. Obviously the money for baseball will have to come from somewhere else. We should be directing funds towards baseball and away from other sports. Thats exactly my point. I’m okay with being cost-conscious on basketball if it lets us get better at baseball (which is less expensive in an absolute sense and more likely to actually result in meaningful success).

Lanier point was literally just pointing out that Tommy appeared to understand this. It never seemed like basketball was a first or second priority to him. The next AD needs to understand this too, and given baseball’s upward trend, continue to focus the resources there, IMO.

A simple thought experiment illustrates my point:

Would anyone NOT be willing to lose 4-5 extra basketball games a year, if we won 7-10 extra baseball game’s each season and made a regional every year? Would we not consider the next AD a huge success if Football saw marginal improvements (Abell wins 6-7 games a season) and Baseball got back to being in the regional host conversation? Who would honestly care that basketball became the worst instead of the 4th worst in the AAC, given that we had a competent football team in the fall and a nationally relevant baseball team in the Spring?

Using 2026 as a baseline, we don't even need 7-10 wins to make a regional in baseball. If we had gone 42-17 this past season, we would've been on the verge of hosting, forget qualifying.

We didn't make a regional this year because we got swept at home vs. Memphis and swept on the road @USC. Go 2-1 vs. Memphis and steal one in LA and our RPI would've been in the high forties and we would've had a first round bye in the conference tourney.

Sure. And is hosting a regional not better than 2-4 extra basketball wins? Seems obvious which is my point.

7-10 wins puts us beyond the bubble every season and in striking distance to host. That's a way greater value add than spending to maintain the current basketball status quo.

(08-07-2026 12:10 AM)Ozzie Rios Sr Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 04:53 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 03:36 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 03:21 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2026 02:43 PM)SmurfGlazer Wrote:  I’m not sure who you are arguing with, Walt? In the revenue sharing era, there’s no longer a distinction between external NIL and internal money. Schools can pay the players directly.

I agree, for us to take the next step, it will take increased funding to be greater players in the transfer market (for retention and attracting new players). So, any new AD ought to be committed to ponying up department funds to increase that budget for the reasons I laid out.

And argue with a wall on Lanier. That was a cost-conscious hire for sure.

Revenue sharing works if there's revenue to share. If more revenue is allocated to player compensation, then there's less for something else. That's where NIL money comes in, and Rice needs much more. You say Lanier was a cost-conscious hire - ok, then, if there's not enough money for a coaching hire, then there'll be even less if some is diverted to paying players. Trying to do it all on insufficient revenue is a zero-sum game. Donors have to help.

Not sure what point you are making. Obviously the money for baseball will have to come from somewhere else. We should be directing funds towards baseball and away from other sports. Thats exactly my point. I’m okay with being cost-conscious on basketball if it lets us get better at baseball (which is less expensive in an absolute sense and more likely to actually result in meaningful success).

Lanier point was literally just pointing out that Tommy appeared to understand this. It never seemed like basketball was a first or second priority to him. The next AD needs to understand this too, and given baseball’s upward trend, continue to focus the resources there, IMO.

A simple thought experiment illustrates my point:

Would anyone NOT be willing to lose 4-5 extra basketball games a year, if we won 7-10 extra baseball game’s each season and made a regional every year? Would we not consider the next AD a huge success if Football saw marginal improvements (Abell wins 6-7 games a season) and Baseball got back to being in the regional host conversation? Who would honestly care that basketball became the worst instead of the 4th worst in the AAC, given that we had a competent football team in the fall and a nationally relevant baseball team in the Spring?

Using 2026 as a baseline, we don't even need 7-10 wins to make a regional in baseball. If we had gone 42-17 this past season, we would've been on the verge of hosting, forget qualifying.

We didn't make a regional this year because we got swept at home vs. Memphis and swept on the road @USC. Go 2-1 vs. Memphis and steal one in LA and our RPI would've been in the high forties and we would've had a first round bye in the conference tourney.

Sure. And is hosting a regional not better than 2-4 extra basketball wins? Seems obvious which is my point.

7-10 wins puts us beyond the bubble every season and in striking distance to host. That's a way greater value add than spending to maintain the current basketball status quo.

Personally, I would prefer more baseball wins AND more basketball wins.

(08-06-2026 02:10 PM)interwebowl Wrote:  IMO IT DOES NOT MATTER

Rice hasn’t been able to get out of its own way forever. Tommy was ok, but really just an average guy who looked exceptional because of the absurdly idiotic people he followed. At the end of the day whoever they pick will answer to the same people who have screwed over Rice athletics for years, Bucky, Bobby and all their inflated egos.

Don’t forget that the only person who won here was Wayne and then those two and king Joe chased him off while the sniveling former President cowered under his desk. They honestly believed that Football and men’s basketball would flourish if baseball could be made to be less important. Well they killed baseball and how is the rest working out for you? Can you imagine how much better Pierce would be if he didn’t inherit a complete **** show.



flourish here if base ball was

Best post here in years. +2

Looking at some other athletic departments through history, a fair argument can be made that to grow an athletic program at a small school, the determination to become nationally pre-eminent in one sport is a better path to overall success than trying to become respectably successful in all sports at once.

Of course, Rice is already respectably successful in several sports. So for us, it would not be a question of being good in many OR excelling in one; it would be a question of [getting back to] being good in many AND excelling in one.

(08-06-2026 12:04 PM)austinbirds Wrote:  I spent 10 mins trying to figure out who we hired named "Hunt"....

All I care about is our new AD being hired away after three years. If that happens, we're improving.

(08-07-2026 11:50 AM)Ourland Wrote:  All I care about is our new AD being hired away after three years. If that happens, we're improving.

What the McClelland hire tells me is any Rice AD who has at least as much success as him stands a good chance to be hired away within a few years.

A good problem to have if Rice keeps making good AD hires, to be sure, but still a problem. The idea of a Rice AD who is both great at the job and sticks around for a decade plus just doesn't survive contact with reality.