(01-10-2024 12:15 PM)Grungy Wrote:  If money was no object, they'd tear the whole thing down and start over.

I've really liked Hambone's idea of turning the lower east into something that extends out to the grassy area where the tailgates are, including improved concessions, lots of TVs covering ours and other games, and I can't remember all of the things he's suggested.

I'd like a Rice sports history museum there, where average fans can view the things that only R-Room patrons have seen for decades (and there are zero trophies on display in there since the renovation).

Replace the entire east second deck with air conditioned suites that include an outdoor porch, for those patrons who want to see the game without looking through a window.
I'd suggest cantilevering two levels, so that they provide shade for the lower east, but this might affect lighting the field.

And let Randy Schaffer have dibs on the suite on the 50.

Agreed on the last part for sure!

The cantilevering might not be possible... not just from an engineering and lighting standpoint, but from the perspective of actually providing shade. You would know far better than I, but it SEEMS that that sun would be meaningfully over the center to west of the stadium for most games except in the mornings... and thus you'd have to be WAY out there to shade anything.

The suites and porch idea is great and would be part of an 'expensive replacement' that I could support.

Oh... one more thing.... since the location of student sections and band sections are now essentially dictated, I think we should dedicate the Rice student and MOB spaces to that function.... and perhaps also a part of the visitor section for THEIR band, if they bring one... I don't know what that might look like, but I'd imagine more comfortable seats... maybe as simple as velcro seat pads that leave an image when the MOB is on the field.... maybe a place for music stand holders.... like a hole, similar to a cup holder but in the floor and easily placed and removed.... and a few deeper rows for drums, tubas etc.

(01-10-2024 12:44 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I wonder if there isn't a way to chop off the top 30 rows, and keep the rest as covered, premium seating with chair backs. That would be nice. I don't think we need an upper East deck, but at least seating would be there as an option for fans. It would be in the shade, at least.

I could support this as well aesthetically, though I think it might be cost prohibitive.

(01-10-2024 12:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think removal of the east upper deck would send the strongest possible signal that Rice University has no interest in ever being relevant in intercollegiate athletics again.

I think it depends a lot on what replaces it. If nothing then I agree. If instead (and I'm just spit balling again) it is replaced by a museum that mirrors Lovett with a grand entrance and maybe suites and 5,000 seats then the message would be the opposite, with only an admission that 35k is a 'big' crowd for us... but at least that we get 35k without having a premium opponent that travels well if we are decent and have a great atmosphere...

I just think the cost to do the above in addition to the demolition would be a barrier.

Bottom line, spend money on making what we have function exceptionally well as opposed to spending money to eliminate what we have only to replace it with something that may or may not function exceptionally well.

Said different, I just don't think that the upper east is a 'drag' on our functionality. It is only a drag on anything because it sits empty.

Let me be clear about what I'm suggesting....

Take the Rice Student and MOB sections and make them 'customized' for them... as opposed to seeking to maximize occupancy. I don't know what that might look like, but in addition to more customized seating, it could include more shade or fans under the seats... or places to put your fedora or rest your horn..... Air conditioning for the cheerleaders... I don't know... ask them.... and more... ask engineering students 'what is possible'.

Again, what we have is an abundance of space. The more comfortable you make it, the more people will enjoy being in it.

(01-10-2024 01:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-10-2024 12:15 PM)Grungy Wrote:  If money was no object, they'd tear the whole thing down and start over.

I've really liked Hambone's idea of turning the lower east into something that extends out to the grassy area where the tailgates are, including improved concessions, lots of TVs covering ours and other games, and I can't remember all of the things he's suggested.

I'd like a Rice sports history museum there, where average fans can view the things that only R-Room patrons have seen for decades (and there are zero trophies on display in there since the renovation).

Replace the entire east second deck with air conditioned suites that include an outdoor porch, for those patrons who want to see the game without looking through a window.
I'd suggest cantilevering two levels, so that they provide shade for the lower east, but this might affect lighting the field.

And let Randy Schaffer have dibs on the suite on the 50.

Agreed on the last part for sure!

The cantilevering might not be possible... not just from an engineering and lighting standpoint, but from the perspective of actually providing shade. You would know far better than I, but it SEEMS that that sun would be meaningfully over the center to west of the stadium for most games except in the mornings... and thus you'd have to be WAY out there to shade anything.

The suites and porch idea is great and would be part of an 'expensive replacement' that I could support.

Oh... one more thing.... since the location of student sections and band sections are now essentially dictated, I think we should dedicate the Rice student and MOB spaces to that function.... and perhaps also a part of the visitor section for THEIR band, if they bring one... I don't know what that might look like, but I'd imagine more comfortable seats... maybe as simple as velcro seat pads that leave an image when the MOB is on the field.... maybe a place for music stand holders.... like a hole, similar to a cup holder but in the floor and easily placed and removed.... and a few deeper rows for drums, tubas etc.

(01-10-2024 12:44 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I wonder if there isn't a way to chop off the top 30 rows, and keep the rest as covered, premium seating with chair backs. That would be nice. I don't think we need an upper East deck, but at least seating would be there as an option for fans. It would be in the shade, at least.

I could support this as well aesthetically, though I think it might be cost prohibitive.

(01-10-2024 12:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think removal of the east upper deck would send the strongest possible signal that Rice University has no interest in ever being relevant in intercollegiate athletics again.

I think it depends a lot on what replaces it. If nothing then I agree. If instead (and I'm just spit balling again) it is replaced by a museum that mirrors Lovett with a grand entrance and maybe suites and 5,000 seats then the message would be the opposite, with only an admission that 35k is a 'big' crowd for us... but at least that we get 35k without having a premium opponent that travels well if we are decent and have a great atmosphere...

I just think the cost to do the above in addition to the demolition would be a barrier.

Bottom line, spend money on making what we have function exceptionally well as opposed to spending money to eliminate what we have only to replace it with something that may or may not function exceptionally well.

Said different, I just don't think that the upper east is a 'drag' on our functionality. It is only a drag on anything because it sits empty.

This. If we can find the money, definitely tear it down and recreate the East side. If not, focus the money on amenities and beatification of the end zone. That more important. The deck is the ugliest part of the stadium, but if nothing else, it could be tarped with something aesthetically pleasing, even if it's a mural of Rice fans.

I wonder how much money TM can come up with for this renovation. From what I read, he was the force behind the $80 million raised at Vanderbilt for their redo. I'm guessing that it would take about that much to do what needs to be done at Rice Stadium.

If we can raise $80mm, I'd rather a large chunk of that go to putting a better product on the field.

Maybe the answer is something I alluded to long ago... where 'athletics' (which can be broadly defined as anything from D1FBS to wellness to recreation) being part of the University would make an argument that some portion of the endowment be segregated for athletics. We already do this somewhat as people can designate where their donations go... this would simply be a more formal notification of that, including dedicated University support.... and would not be limited to athletics... you could have similar categories for arts, sciences, food service, landscaping etc if you wanted to. Just look at the last 30 years of budgets and find things that we spend money on every year without fail... and would for the foreseeable future... again, broadly defined... and then earmark a portion of the endowment to those ends.... where if we spend (just making up numbers) between 20 and 50mm per year in each of these areas, that perhaps 10-25mm of annual endowment (the money required to generate that in perpetuity) is set aside for that purpose... with the remaining 10-25mm for each area coming from more 'discretionary' funds so as not to hamstring the administration... and now that we have say 100mm of the endowment 'earmarked' for athletics... we seek donors specifically for that area... which we somewhat already do.

This does a number of things... a few of them are:
1) it clarifies our commitment to athletics of SOME sort in perpetuity.
2) It's easier to raise $100mm from $100mm than it is from zero
and 3)it allows for some increased measure of predictability and planning by athletics....

That last point speaks to the idea that many are concerned that increases in donations for athletics would lead to a reduction in the amount of university support given. This would directly address that risk.... at least to a point. The most obvious 'cost' that I could see being put into an endowment is the cost of athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships are really academic scholarships whose award is based upon meeting requirements essentially agreed upon between the coaches and admissions... so in 2100 when all sports are played by robots, the 'coaches' might be the robotics department.... or if colleges didn't participate in this, they might be the guy who checks your ID at the gym or the Dungeon Master.

(01-10-2024 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If we can raise $80mm, I'd rather a large chunk of that go to putting a better product on the field.

Maybe the answer is something I alluded to long ago... where 'athletics' (which can be broadly defined as anything from D1FBS to wellness to recreation) being part of the University would make an argument that some portion of the endowment be segregated for athletics. We already do this somewhat as people can designate where their donations go... this would simply be a more formal notification of that, including dedicated University support.... and would not be limited to athletics... you could have similar categories for arts, sciences, food service, landscaping etc if you wanted to. Just look at the last 30 years of budgets and find things that we spend money on every year without fail... and would for the foreseeable future... again, broadly defined... and then earmark a portion of the endowment to those ends.... where if we spend (just making up numbers) between 20 and 50mm per year in each of these areas, that perhaps 10-25mm of annual endowment (the money required to generate that in perpetuity) is set aside for that purpose... with the remaining 10-25mm for each area coming from more 'discretionary' funds so as not to hamstring the administration... and now that we have say 100mm of the endowment 'earmarked' for athletics... we seek donors specifically for that area... which we somewhat already do.

This does a number of things... a few of them are:
1) it clarifies our commitment to athletics of SOME sort in perpetuity.
2) It's easier to raise $100mm from $100mm than it is from zero
and 3)it allows for some increased measure of predictability and planning by athletics....

That last point speaks to the idea that many are concerned that increases in donations for athletics would lead to a reduction in the amount of university support given. This would directly address that risk.... at least to a point. The most obvious 'cost' that I could see being put into an endowment is the cost of athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships are really academic scholarships whose award is based upon meeting requirements essentially agreed upon between the coaches and admissions... so in 2100 when all sports are played by robots, the 'coaches' might be the robotics department.... or if colleges didn't participate in this, they might be the guy who checks your ID at the gym or the Dungeon Master.

I'm just talking about the stadium renovation. The 'product' is a completely different matter. Coaching salaries and recruiting budgets (variables that affect product) are provided by the university in the annual athletics budget, while the renovation is funded exclusively through donations. As far as I know, this is how it works at other universities as well.

I don't know what parameters Rice must work within when trying to allocate donations to different areas of need, but my guess is that they are restricted in how they spend the money. Perhaps a general donation to the university could be allocated to a stadium renovation, but it looks like donors are very specific in how they want their money spent, and very few of them want it going toward athletics infrastructure.

Rice donors are going to have to step up in a very big way for any renovation to be done right, and done completely. It will cost a lot of money.

(01-10-2024 03:36 PM)Ourland Wrote:  ...
Rice donors are going to have to step up in a very big way for any renovation to be done right, and done completely. It will cost a lot of money.

Well, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket.

(01-10-2024 03:54 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-10-2024 03:36 PM)Ourland Wrote:  ...
Rice donors are going to have to step up in a very big way for any renovation to be done right, and done completely. It will cost a lot of money.

Well, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket.

No kidding.

(01-10-2024 03:36 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm just talking about the stadium renovation. The 'product' is a completely different matter. Coaching salaries and recruiting budgets (variables that affect product) are provided by the university in the annual athletics budget, while the renovation is funded exclusively through donations. As far as I know, this is how it works at other universities as well.

I don't know what parameters Rice must work within when trying to allocate donations to different areas of need, but my guess is that they are restricted in how they spend the money. Perhaps a general donation to the university could be allocated to a stadium renovation, but it looks like donors are very specific in how they want their money spent, and very few of them want it going toward athletics infrastructure.

Rice donors are going to have to step up in a very big way for any renovation to be done right, and done completely. It will cost a lot of money.

As I understand it.... or at least this used to be the case and it would have taken a challenge to the trust to change it... but the endowment as I understand it can't be spent on new construction. You can borrow from the endowment (and pay it back with donations) and I think you can spend out of earnings... but you can't spend corpus on facility construction. .

As I said, I think allocating 100mm to endow athletic scholarships would encourage more donations to athletics. I think some people are concerned that they donate large (for them) sums to athletics, only to have that donation torn down or repurposed for something else years later. We're talking generational gifts... not annual ones. Sure, some like Patterson and others have overcome that, but these are harder gifts, IMO than a gift to the general fund.... or to an academic building or dorm. Nobody is concerned that Brown College won't exist in 20 or 50 years.

But you touch on my concern....

Just because numbers make more sense to me... Let's say that HRS... or at least the parts we want to fix is a '3'... for $30mm, we could turn it into a 7 by 'repurposing' the space..... and turning it into an 8 or 9 (demolishing and rebuilding) would cost $80mm over say 10 years.... I'd spend the $30mm and then put another $30mm into the product on the field (again over 10 years).... NIL, recruiting, coaching etc... and I think we'd be miles ahead... and if we THEN wanted to spend what would now be $120mm to turn our 7 that has become a 5 into an 8 or 9 again, it would be easier to raise it.... because of the investment in the product.

(01-10-2024 04:03 PM)Ourland Wrote:  

(01-10-2024 03:54 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(01-10-2024 03:36 PM)Ourland Wrote:  ...
Rice donors are going to have to step up in a very big way for any renovation to be done right, and done completely. It will cost a lot of money.

Well, I'm off to buy a lottery ticket.

No kidding.

Maybe we should all pitch in $20... and if we ever win... half of it goes to athletics and the remainder goes to those who pitched in.

(01-10-2024 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If we can raise $80mm, I'd rather a large chunk of that go to putting a better product on the field.

Maybe the answer is something I alluded to long ago... where 'athletics' (which can be broadly defined as anything from D1FBS to wellness to recreation) being part of the University would make an argument that some portion of the endowment be segregated for athletics. We already do this somewhat as people can designate where their donations go... this would simply be a more formal notification of that, including dedicated University support.... and would not be limited to athletics... you could have similar categories for arts, sciences, food service, landscaping etc if you wanted to. Just look at the last 30 years of budgets and find things that we spend money on every year without fail... and would for the foreseeable future... again, broadly defined... and then earmark a portion of the endowment to those ends.... where if we spend (just making up numbers) between 20 and 50mm per year in each of these areas, that perhaps 10-25mm of annual endowment (the money required to generate that in perpetuity) is set aside for that purpose... with the remaining 10-25mm for each area coming from more 'discretionary' funds so as not to hamstring the administration... and now that we have say 100mm of the endowment 'earmarked' for athletics... we seek donors specifically for that area... which we somewhat already do.

This does a number of things... a few of them are:
1) it clarifies our commitment to athletics of SOME sort in perpetuity.
2) It's easier to raise $100mm from $100mm than it is from zero
and 3)it allows for some increased measure of predictability and planning by athletics....

That last point speaks to the idea that many are concerned that increases in donations for athletics would lead to a reduction in the amount of university support given. This would directly address that risk.... at least to a point. The most obvious 'cost' that I could see being put into an endowment is the cost of athletic scholarships. Athletic scholarships are really academic scholarships whose award is based upon meeting requirements essentially agreed upon between the coaches and admissions... so in 2100 when all sports are played by robots, the 'coaches' might be the robotics department.... or if colleges didn't participate in this, they might be the guy who checks your ID at the gym or the Dungeon Master.

Something like this?



This used to be hanging in the hallway that led to the football offices, upstairs over the HRS south end locker rooms.
It implies that there is an endowment plan already in existence, similar to what you describe.

The Owl Club has a donation page that includes a pop-up menu with these targeted donation areas:

Owl Club Athletic Fund
Rice Athletics Scholarship Fund
Baseball -- RBI Club
Men's Basketball -- 3-Point Club
Women's Basketball -- Assist Club
Football -- Extra Point Club
Golf -- Birdie Club
Soccer -- Rice Goal Club
Swimming -- H2O Club
Men's Tennis -- Ace Club
Women's Tennis -- Match Point Club
Men's T&F/CC -- The PR Club
Women's T&F/CC -- Flying Owls Club
Volleyball -- Point Rice Club
Other (Please specify in special instructions)

(01-10-2024 05:44 PM)Grungy Wrote:  Something like this?

Sort of but not really, respectfully. In fact, that is precisely the opposite of what i have proposed. If you read it, these are 'scholarship' endowments, meaning they literally are replacing University support for the academic side of athletics. This is precisely what makes people concerned that donations to THIS endowment merely (or could, based on the 'temperature') reduce... and not augment the Universities commitment to athletics.

My name sits on a room at Reckling as a direct result of this... because I had faith that Reckling would be around for a good while... and though I felt similarly about football (my sport for those that don't know) the plans in place at the time were all temporary, and I was fairly convinced (and it turned out to be true) that a donation to a room at the stadium would only last a few years, at most. As I made a multi-year commitment, It might have even been replaced before I'd finished paying for it. I wouldn't have that concern now.... because of Patterson's large donation and Tudor and Brown, which are more recent than my donation. Part of the reason I'm in favor of augmenting rather than demolishing parts of the stadium. Not that we would be demolishing any previous endowments/donations, but that if we can do that to HRS, we wouldn't bat an eye to doing it (again) to the south end locker rooms or old (or old old) weight rooms etc.

Quote:It implies that there is an endowment plan already in existence, similar to what you describe.

Yes it exists, but it includes no direct commitment from the University.

These donations should augment that.... and not 'be' that... if that makes sense.

IMO, The University endowment should T LEAST fund scholarships, no matter the 'reason' for the scholarship.... hence the first donation should be the University with a principal amount that would cover the cost of some 300+ tuitions, room and board.... or at least 50% of that number as we do for 'the average' Rice student (few pay full freight... many pay zero). With that University commitment in place, it is an easier 'sell'.

So yes, it would be part of this athletics endowment if that is what you're talking about... but rather than being separate from the University 'trust us' commitment, it would augment a very tangible commitment from the University.

I'm sure there are creative and meaningful ways to acknowledge the biggest donors of the past, even if a structure that was funded by their gift is torn down for whatever reason.

(01-11-2024 12:08 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm sure there are creative and meaningful ways to acknowledge the biggest donors of the past, even if a structure that was funded by their gift is torn down for whatever reason.

Sure.... but that's only part of the issue... and really a small part. I only spoke more about it because of my personal decision tree. It DOES impact the donation decision though.... I mean if you were asked to donate the same amount to have your name on a locker as you would to have your name on the whole locker room, which would YOU do? What if your name would be there for 5 years versus 10? The ability to offer 'more' recognition is often part of what gets people to write bigger checks. It's part of how you raise more money.

The bigger issue is that from time to time in our history there has been indecision about Rice's continuation of athletics... We can point to the fact that 'we're still here' and 'we're spending more' and sell that for certain, but it is hard to overcome the fact that there is absolutely nothing that means this will be the case in 5 or 10 or 20 years. Even my proposal doesn't ensure that because 'athletics' can be so broadly defined... and I'm only proposing that we cover tuition costs and upkeep of whatever facilities we have, which of course we would do anyway...

The conversation is simply different to say that 'we expect the university to continue to support athletics as they have for the past 112 years, despite the changing landscapes'.... vs 'reflecting our 112 year history of athletics at Rice, the university has made a perpetual commitment to continue that tradition.'

(01-11-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  'we expect the university to continue to support athletics as they have for the past 112 years, despite the changing landscapes'....

Gosh, I hope not. The way Rice has supported athletics for the past 112 years, or at least the last 60 or so pf them, could be described most charitably as benign neglect.

(01-11-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 12:08 PM)Ourland Wrote:  I'm sure there are creative and meaningful ways to acknowledge the biggest donors of the past, even if a structure that was funded by their gift is torn down for whatever reason.

Sure.... but that's only part of the issue... and really a small part. I only spoke more about it because of my personal decision tree. It DOES impact the donation decision though.... I mean if you were asked to donate the same amount to have your name on a locker as you would to have your name on the whole locker room, which would YOU do? What if your name would be there for 5 years versus 10? The ability to offer 'more' recognition is often part of what gets people to write bigger checks. It's part of how you raise more money.

The bigger issue is that from time to time in our history there has been indecision about Rice's continuation of athletics... We can point to the fact that 'we're still here' and 'we're spending more' and sell that for certain, but it is hard to overcome the fact that there is absolutely nothing that means this will be the case in 5 or 10 or 20 years. Even my proposal doesn't ensure that because 'athletics' can be so broadly defined... and I'm only proposing that we cover tuition costs and upkeep of whatever facilities we have, which of course we would do anyway...

The conversation is simply different to say that 'we expect the university to continue to support athletics as they have for the past 112 years, despite the changing landscapes'.... vs 'reflecting our 112 year history of athletics at Rice, the university has made a perpetual commitment to continue that tradition.'

Okay I see. So, what you're proposing is an 'athletics endowment' similar to Stanford's, that guarantees the life of athletics at Rice as we know it? Trying to follow. If so, I think that has always been the goal, due to a lack of athletics-specific donations. Right? But if bylaws could be changed, to divert parts of the endowment, or parts of 'general' donations to the university into an athletics endowment, it would address this need. These funds would go toward scholarships and upkeep of infrastructure.

(01-11-2024 12:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2024 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  'we expect the university to continue to support athletics as they have for the past 112 years, despite the changing landscapes'....

Gosh, I hope not. The way Rice has supported athletics for the past 112 years, or at least the last 60 or so pf them, could be described most charitably as benign neglect.

Important semantics.

The 60 years of 'benign neglect' is precisely why we need such a statement... and I didn't say 'in the same way as we have'. The issue is that long periods of benign neglect often lead to watershed events in one direction or another... and this is designed to be one that leads to an awakening as opposed to a wake.... or more likely... just a long, drawn out stay in a nursing home where the kids come to visit less and less each week.

Texans game…
NBC had shots of Super Bowl 8 during a break.
Vikings and Dolphins on either side of the HRS tunnel.
I was thinking “Imagine a pro team in that miserable locker room”, thinking of the old visiting team locker room (next door to the bandhall), which now has serious subsidence issues.
Then I remembered - it wasn’t there yet - it was built 5 years later.
Imagine a pro team crammed into the original HRS dressing rooms.
Did the NFL bring in dressing trailers, and someting with showers?

50 years ago today.

(01-13-2024 07:03 PM)Grungy Wrote:  Texans game…
NBC had shots of Super Bowl 8 during a break.
Vikings and Dolphins on either side of the HRS tunnel.
I was thinking “Imagine a pro team in that miserable locker room”, thinking of the old visiting team locker room (next door to the bandhall), which now has serious subsidence issues.
Then I remembered - it wasn’t there yet - it was built 5 years later.
Imagine a pro team crammed into the original HRS dressing rooms.
Did the NFL bring in dressing trailers, and someting with showers?

50 years ago, pro teams still lived a sparse existence. The bare locker room probably wan’t that much worse than what they had at their home stadiums. Nothing like today at all.

For reference, a number of images from around that time.

https://www.gettyimages.no/photos/nfl-lo...ort=oldest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They only made about $60,000 a year back then. Most of them had second jobs during the off season.

Anybody hear about the next phase of upgrades of HRS and also about Tudor? Also, I thought the new AD would be more accessible to the public such as answering questions and concerns and way forward of athletics at Rice.