(05-05-2013 08:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-05-2013 07:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Sorry if you think I was putting words in your mouth. I feel the same way every time some yahoo tells me I am OK with mediocrity.

Apology accepted, no worries. And if you think I'm one of the ones accusing you of being OK with mediocrity, I apologize. I certainly don't intend to convey that and I don't think that. If anything, just the opposite. You want more out of the program than it's capable of. I think there are a lot of people on here who either are incredibly optimistic or simply don't realize how dire a mess we are in.

Quote:If we don't fill the coffers, we won't have a program. And if we do what is needed to fill to those coffers, we probably won't have a program, either. Well, good luck. I didn't realize the problem to be solved was how to win respect AND raise a lot of money at the same time. Maybe we really do need one of those coaches who cuts corners. Just for a while, of course.

I would never, ever support hiring one of those coaches who cuts corners. Todd got way too close for my comfort, and I would rather shut the program down than hire a coach who breaks the rules.

I think you stated the problem quite succinctly. We do have to win respect and make money at the same time. I would add that if we don't make the money, we're not going to be able to do the things needed to win respect.

By the way, I don't think the bunch in charge right now has a clue.

I really don'twant a cheater coach either. But at the time I wrote that, I saw no way to raise $10MM/yr AND win enough to increase our standing in the football world. Since then, i have read RUowls' posts, and have a little more hope. RUowls for coach AND AD.

But until we have you, Ham, RU, and/or a few others in positions of power, we are just a bunch of friars debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

(05-05-2013 10:26 PM)ruowls Wrote:  I understand.
And like I said when I came to Rice.... "Trust me. I can get it done."
Or if you prefer, "I only thought people from California threw the ball."
Or, "Defe???, a little help here."

I know you do understand.
And I like your attitude.
You certainly don't have much, "losing is okay as long as you have a good enough excuse," or, "if you don't know where you are going, the path of least resistance will get you there," and getting rid of those thoughts is what we need more than anything.
I still think you're a bit too optimistic with some of your expectations, and I'm probably a bit too cynical, but at the end of the day I think you'd get it done because you know where you're going and you'd recognize and adjust.

I have zero confidence in the current bunch.

(05-06-2013 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I really don'twant a cheater coach either. But at the time I wrote that, I saw no way to raise $10MM/yr AND win enough to increase our standing in the football world. Since then, i have read RUowls' posts, and have a little more hope. RUowls for coach AND AD.
But until we have you, Ham, RU, and/or a few others in positions of power, we are just a bunch of friars debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Well, I'm not going to do it. I'm too old and tired and burned out, and I don't need the money. There was a time when Rice AD was my ideal job, but it's not right for me and I'm not right for it at this stage of my life.

Hambone and RU are the right age and the right attitude to get it done. Obviously, we've had more than a few offline discussions about this. We are all pretty much in the same place about the need for additional revenues. I think RU is maybe a tad optimistic about how much he can get from a few sources, and he probably thinks (and probably correctly so) that I am too cynical. Hambone is probably the voice of reason between us.

I think you are right, this really has come down to the future of the program. If it's not too much of a hijack, maybe we should address that.

To frame that discussion, here are the numbers as I understand them: The board is willing to subsidize $10 million a year to keep D-I/BCS athletics. Right now the loss is $14 million, and growing annually over the last 40 years at something slightly higher than the rate of inflation. There is an additional $2 million a year that we need to spend in order to remain competitive (the things Hambone outlined above). Thus, to remain competitive and reach the board's target, we need $6 million more a year in revenues.

Going further, McKinsey concluded that neither I-AA/FCS nor D-II made any sense for us, but that D-III offered two advantages--lower overall cost, and opportunity for more (non-scholarship) athletes to participate. I think we ultimately need to offset those advantages by 1) cutting the loss number to around $6 million and 2) upgrading the club sports program to the equivalent of a D-III program (more sports, paid coaches, travel funding, equipment, and trainer/manager support). The costs associated with this club sports upgrade are in the few hundreds of thousands compared to the millions elsewhere in this discussion, and come with the added advantage of improved student/faculty relations, and thus can be treated almost as rounding error. To get there we are looking at $10 million in additional revenues. So, how do we get there?

It may well be the number of angels on the head of a pin, but I still think this is a discussion that should be had, and this is the group that should have it. If it needs to be split to another thread, so be it.

Ideas, anyone?

Interesting data for those wanting to beat their heads against the wall some more:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...RevExp.pdf

i was optimistic until you told me that in addition to winning and competing our way to respectability, we had to raise $10mm in new revenue also. why do we have to do this? Is the Admin issuing an ultimatum or is it a preemptive move to keep them from pulling the plug.

i like Bailiff and think he has mace progress withe team, although wY too slowly. But starting from where we are now, we need the blockbuster year most of us think can be attained. If he doesn't get it done, it will be time to bring in RUowls. He is my first and last choice.

As for AD,, I would prefer Ham. I don't like everything about his plan, but as you say, at least he has one.

why go homegrown for these positions? why not? it,s like home schooling vs pulic schools - motivation counts for a lot.

But we're estimating angels here. I am totally powerless and if you could move and shake, you would have done so by now.

other than that, it's just win, baby. i don't care how much money we raise, if we don't win, that kind of defeats the purpose.

JMHO. Put that together with a nickel, and you'll have nickel, and that is pretty worthless too.

still think SMU could fit in there somewhere at least for the next 4-5 years or so, but I will leave that up to AD Hambone.

I have grown so tired of the discussion. The Armed Forces Bowl was great, the players play their butts off, and I think the coaches are coaching their butts off too (not sure they were a few years ago). And we continue to settle for being a small, small-time program- to the extent that we (the university and the BOT) are asking the near-impossible of reducing/eliminating the deficit while in today's CUSA. Is it the athletic department's fault we are in this position? Absolutely. But I don't think that means the university should risk losing a 100-yr old D1 program because the people in charge of it have stunk it up for years. Who is in charge of them?? The president and BOT. So- fix it. I remain of the opinion that we have one possible lifeline left. Copying and pasting from something I wrote last year---

I think the AD (or an/ AD) should go to the BOT and say, we are dying a slow death and we need to do something truly bold to save our D1 athletics program. Here is a 10-year plan with a goal to get Rice in a premier conference and for the athletic department to become self-funding (i.e. no annual subsidy). To achieve those goals we need to do a number of things, all of which require capital. We need state of the art facilities- stadium need a full renovation (or a new smaller stadium built) and it needs new locker rooms, weight room, meeting rooms, etc, coaching salaries and recruiting budgets need increasing to be competitive in the market we want to be in (premier conference), the marketing budget needs to be increased so that the Houston area and the nation is bombarded with information about the revitalization of the program, the recruiting process needs a full review and revision if necessary with the goal being that we should be at least as streamlined as Stanford, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt, and we should have a very specific goal of not losing any Houston area player to one of those schools. With all of that in process, the AD should/will actively lobby the premier conferences for admission **and let the media know that is what we are doing**-- and if we do the above combined with all of the other positives we bring I think we have better than a slugger's chance.

If, after doing all those things- well north of $100 million commitment in a very short period of time- we have not achieved our two basic goals in 10 years, then do a full review and shut it down if that is the decision.

(05-06-2013 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i was optimistic until you told me that in addition to winning and competing our way to respectability, we had to raise $10mm in new revenue also. why do we have to do this? Is the Admin issuing an ultimatum or is it a preemptive move to keep them from pulling the plug.

Fair question. I've answered it in bits and pieces, but will try to address it directly here.

Te board has expressed its willingness to support athletics with a subsidy of $10 million per year. Right now athletics is running $14 million in the red, so it needs the $10 million plus another $4 million that the board is not happy about. These are SWAG numbers, but from what I've been able to piece together I don't think they are very far off. What's very interesting in that regard is that if I'm reading it correctly, the report which d1owls linked indicates (at Table 3.7, page 29) that average institutional support for D-I private universities was $13.9 million direct and $2.5 million indirect in 2012. That suggests that our number is below--rather than above--average, which suggests in turn that there are some justifications for spending more that should perhaps be advanced. Perhaps we could go there instead of having to raise revenues so much, but at this point I don't know. Maybe we need some of their PR departments to come work for us. I need to spend some more time with that report to be sure I understand it fully.

To win and compete our way to respectability, we need to be spending another $2 million a year, as noted by Hambone. But the board and the administration are unwilling to allow those expenditures as long as the deficit is above the $10 million that they are willing to subsidize.

So, to be able to spend that $2 million, we need $6 million in additional revenues ($14 million current deficit + $2 million additional expenses - $6 million additional revenues = $10 million resulting deficit). Does that explain it?

My $10 million in additional revenue requirement is that $6 million plus another $4 million that reduces the deficit further and funds an expanded club sports program, basically offsetting the advantages that McKinsey found for the D-III case. The extra $4 million probably is fairly described as pre-emptive.

So the $6 million is what we need to maintain a competitive program and the $4 million is pre-emptive. Does that make sense? Keep in mind, every one of these numbers is an annual number, so over 10 years you would need 10 times as much.

As for SMU, here's the problem
One way to view the extra $2 million is that's the money we need to spend to keep pace with SMU.
If SMU spends comparable money over the next 10 years (I expect that they will) and we don't, then ten years from now our chances of beating SMU will be about what they are with TCU and Baylor today (and we certainly don't come close to a 7 out of 10 shot with either).
But I can't see where playing SMU does much to raise the $6 million revenue increase that we need to enable the $2 million spending increase that we need in order to remain competitive with SMU.
Hope that formulation explains the problem.

Back to your comment that I quoted, it's not that we need $10 million in revenues in addition to winning and being competitive. It's that we need at least $6 million and probably $10 million IN ORDER TO be able to win and be competitive.

I have to admit, when you look at the environment he's having to do it in, Bailiff's slow progress really does not look that bad.

(05-06-2013 10:58 AM)Middle Ages Wrote:  I have grown so tired of the discussion. The Armed Forces Bowl was great, the players play their butts off, and I think the coaches are coaching their butts off too (not sure they were a few years ago). And we continue to settle for being a small, small-time program- to the extent that we (the university and the BOT) are asking the near-impossible of reducing/eliminating the deficit while in today's CUSA. Is it the athletic department's fault we are in this position? Absolutely. But I don't think that means the university should risk losing a 100-yr old D1 program because the people in charge of it have stunk it up for years. Who is in charge of them?? The president and BOT. So- fix it. I remain of the opinion that we have one possible lifeline left. Copying and pasting from something I wrote last year---

I think the AD (or an/ AD) should go to the BOT and say, we are dying a slow death and we need to do something truly bold to save our D1 athletics program. Here is a 10-year plan with a goal to get Rice in a premier conference and for the athletic department to become self-funding (i.e. no annual subsidy). To achieve those goals we need to do a number of things, all of which require capital. We need state of the art facilities- stadium need a full renovation (or a new smaller stadium built) and it needs new locker rooms, weight room, meeting rooms, etc, coaching salaries and recruiting budgets need increasing to be competitive in the market we want to be in (premier conference), the marketing budget needs to be increased so that the Houston area and the nation is bombarded with information about the revitalization of the program, the recruiting process needs a full review and revision if necessary with the goal being that we should be at least as streamlined as Stanford, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt, and we should have a very specific goal of not losing any Houston area player to one of those schools. With all of that in process, the AD should/will actively lobby the premier conferences for admission **and let the media know that is what we are doing**-- and if we do the above combined with all of the other positives we bring I think we have better than a slugger's chance.

If, after doing all those things- well north of $100 million commitment in a very short period of time- we have not achieved our two basic goals in 10 years, then do a full review and shut it down if that is the decision.

This is precisely what I would like to do if I were AD. Of course, I'm close enough to retirement that the 10 years wouldn't be a threat to me. I have this sneaking suspicion that a lot of our coaches would bail rather than face the prospect of losing their jobs in 10 years. For that reason, I'm not sure it's actually doable.

I agree with you, MA, there's been too much discussion on the public board. This is a subject of great interest to me. I would like to continue by PM with anyone who is interested.

(05-06-2013 07:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Going further, McKinsey concluded that neither I-AA/FCS nor D-II made any sense for us, but that D-III offered two advantages--lower overall cost, and opportunity for more (non-scholarship) athletes to participate. I think we ultimately need to offset those advantages by 1) cutting the loss number to around $6 million and 2) upgrading the club sports program to the equivalent of a D-III program (more sports, paid coaches, travel funding, equipment, and trainer/manager support). The costs associated with this club sports upgrade are in the few hundreds of thousands compared to the millions elsewhere in this discussion, and come with the added advantage of improved student/faculty relations, and thus can be treated almost as rounding error.

Can you say more about your ideas for club sports? I think there were men's soccer and lacrosse clubs when I was on campus 30 years ago. There is another thread about rugby.

Do you want to do what we do now better, do more, or both?

For reference, here is the list of men's varsity sports at Williams College that Rice does not sponsor as varsity sports

I pick Williams because it is highly selective for admissions yet--to a large extent--it is a jock school because athletic participation is very high.

crew
soccer
lacrosse
squash
swimming
wrestling
ice hockey

would you like to all of those, or take a subset and do them very well.

Note: rugby is a club sport at Williams

Obviously need to factor in women's sports but it is illustrative enough to get to the right answer for men's sports.

It is amazing to think back to 1949 and the decision to build Rice Stadium...talk about your bold aggressive moves. Unfortunately with the exception of the Reck that has been about it for a major commitment to the athletic program.

(05-11-2013 04:25 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Can you say more about your ideas for club sports? I think there were men's soccer and lacrosse clubs when I was on campus 30 years ago. There is another thread about rugby.
Do you want to do what we do now better, do more, or both?

Initially, do what we do now better, but also look to do more and grow over time.

As I noted above, on advantage that McKinsey saw for the D-III model was that D-III schools usually have a higher percentage of students participating in athletics because the barriers to entry are lower at the D-III level. If that's an argument for D-III (and I think it is), and if we can defuse that argument by expanding club sports to the equivalent of D-III programs in a bunch of sports, and do so relatively inexpensively, then that is a plus in the political battles that must be fought.

CDC was the first--and so far last--Rice AD who was receptive to this. His thought was that the more students you had playing club sports, and the better the club sports experience was for them, the more political capital the AD would have--particularly after these students become alumni and start giving to university programs they support. As I posted, I think on another thread, I don't see CDC getting out-negotiated often. And one reason is that he is very shrewd about accumulating political capital up front.

I remember going to watch a women's softball club play Texas A&M in a Bryan park in the late 1970s.

Neither D3 or club help the athletes pay their school bills which the D1 scholarships do. I will probably be more interested in a club sport than a half-hearted attempt by Rice at any NCAA level.

(05-11-2013 06:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 04:25 PM)MemOwl Wrote:  Can you say more about your ideas for club sports? I think there were men's soccer and lacrosse clubs when I was on campus 30 years ago. There is another thread about rugby.
Do you want to do what we do now better, do more, or both?

Initially, do what we do now better, but also look to do more and grow over time.

As I noted above, on advantage that McKinsey saw for the D-III model was that D-III schools usually have a higher percentage of students participating in athletics because the barriers to entry are lower at the D-III level. If that's an argument for D-III (and I think it is), and if we can defuse that argument by expanding club sports to the equivalent of D-III programs in a bunch of sports, and do so relatively inexpensively, then that is a plus in the political battles that must be fought.

CDC was the first--and so far last--Rice AD who was receptive to this. His thought was that the more students you had playing club sports, and the better the club sports experience was for them, the more political capital the AD would have--particularly after these students become alumni and start giving to university programs they support. As I posted, I think on another thread, I don't see CDC getting out-negotiated often. And one reason is that he is very shrewd about accumulating political capital up front.